On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On the basis of all of the foregoing, I don't think we can consider
>> this patch further for this CommitFest and will update
>> commitfest.postgresql.org accordingly.
> FWIW, I am very excited about this patch and would be happy to review
> it but have been very busy over the past month. If I can promise a
> review by Thursday morning could we keep it active? Hopefully, at the
> very least, I can provide some useful feedback and spawn some
> community interest.
> I am worried that there is a bit of a chicken and an egg problem with
> this patch. 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. From the documentation, this patch seems like
> an enormous step in the right direction.
I think it would be great for you to review it... I doubt that will
cause it to get committed for 9.0, but my doubt is no reason for you
to hold off reviewing it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-01 20:20:39|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL |
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2010-02-01 20:12:41|
|Subject: Re: plpython3|