On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Code samples.
> I don't know, because even with several thousand lines of basic Python code to my credit I cannot understand a single one of the arguments you presented for why your implementation is better--except agreeing that, yes, tracebacks are useful
> And even on that one, I'm not going to take your word on the superiority of your implementation.
Sure, that's what review is about. No?
> You're writing way over people's heads here.
Okay. I guess I hoped the documentation would help clarify a lot of this, and make the advantages self-evident.
> (Doesn't help that your docs link at the bottom of http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP:plpython3 is broken either).
Ouch. Thanks, that's fixed now. Please take a look again:
> If one has to be a Python expert to understand your position, you've already lost.
Function modules should be pretty obvious. "native typing" is a bit more difficult as a solid understanding of PG's type system is fairly important for a firm grasp.
> Python code is easy to read though. If you'd said "here's a great example of how Function Modules are an improvement over what you can do with the current pl/python," that would be infinitely more useful than the list of language trivia related to them. You should be aiming to put Peter on the spot to respond to claims you make like "you can't do this easily with the current implementation" after showing an elegant bit of code.
Okay. So, some examples would help. The documentation is back up, so please be sure to look at the numerous examples provided therein. In addition to that, I'll try to get some contrasting examples posted as a follow-up to an earlier message. "In plpython you do X whereas in plpython3 you do Y."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2010-01-14 12:42:53|
|Subject: Re: improving log management|
|Previous:||From: Aidan Van Dyk||Date: 2010-01-14 12:39:51|
|Subject: Re: plpython3|