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

Re: plpython3

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpython3
Date: 2010-01-13 21:46:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On ons, 2010-01-13 at 13:33 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> The only thing I am currently looking for is an objective review of the
> patch based on the benefits it provides.

Right, but I was opining that such a vague feature listing is not
adequate for that.

> I can tell you that if the Pye
> patch provides stack trace capability and the current PL does not. That
> right there is enough for me to push a +1 for review and possible
> inclusion.

That is the case.

> If you feel what James is saying is actually trite and more buzzword 
> compliant I welcome the opportunity to see a comparative of the current 
> status of PL/Python versus the Pye patch from you. If nothing else it is
> a learning opportunity for all involved.

There was extensive discussion about some of the design decisions
upthread, so any reviewer should review those.  It may end up being a
agree-to-disagree situation.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-13 21:47:37
Subject: Re: primary key display in psql
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-13 21:42:36
Subject: Re: patch to implement ECPG side tracing / tracking ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group