| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpython3 |
| Date: | 2010-02-01 21:13:39 |
| Message-ID: | 201002012113.o11LDdQ00421@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut escribi?:
> > On m?n, 2010-02-01 at 12:01 -0800, Nathan Boley wrote:
> > > I code nearly exclusively in python and C, but I have
> > > often found pl/python to be very unwieldy. For this reason I often
> > > use pl/perl or pl/pgsql for problems that, outside of postgres, I
> > > would always use python.
> >
> > I find that curious, because much of the criticism about the current
> > PL/Python can be traced back to the fact that the implementation used to
> > be an exact copy of PL/Perl.
>
> Perhaps the problem is that PL/Perl used to be unwieldy back when
> PL/Python was created. PL/Perl has definitely seen a lot more activity.
I would love to know why PL/Python can't be incrementally improved like
the rest of our code.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-02-01 21:30:29 | Re: plpython3 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-02-01 21:11:51 | Re: plpython3 |