Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: plpython3

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: plpython3
Date: 2010-02-01 20:13:43
Message-ID: 603c8f071002011213q734dea80k9f621028d0730778@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-01 20:20:39
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2010-02-01 20:12:41
Subject: Re: plpython3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group