James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com,
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,
PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> To recap the votes I've seen on this thread and elsewhere:
> - JD is very enthusiastic about this patch
> - So is the OP
> - Josh Berkus and I are both dubious about having two in-core PL/pythons
> - Peter Eisentraut prefers the original implementation
> - Greg Smith thinks (if I'm not putting words into his mouth) that
> this might be worth considering, but not for 9.0
One other problem with accepting this to be parallel with the existing
plpython is that there's a name conflict: Peter's work to allow the
existing PL to use Python 3 has already claimed the name "plpython3".
Whether it's to be distributed in core or separately, I think something
needs to be done about that.
The first thought that comes to mind is "plpythonng", following a
tradition established by the tcl client rewrite among others ... but
that double n doesn't read very well.
regards, tom lane
In response to
Re: plpython3 at 2010-02-01 18:20:47 from Robert Haas
Responses
Re: plpython3 at 2010-02-01 19:00:08 from Alvaro Herrera
Re: plpython3 at 2010-02-01 19:13:50 from David E. Wheeler
