Re: plpython3

On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 05:39 -0700, James William Pye wrote:

>
> > 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."
>

The documentation is very thorough, thank you. I am still a fan of
getting this reviewed for potential inclusion but I firmly agree with
what Greg has already said.

What I would (as a non hacker) would look for is:

(1) Generalized benchmarks between plpython(core) and plpython3u

I know a lot of these are subjective, but it is still good to see if
there are any curves or points that bring the performance of either to
light.

(2) Example of the traceback facility, I know it is silly but I don't
have time to actually download head, apply the patch and test this. This
type of thing, showing debugging facilities within the function would be
killer.

(3) A distinct real world comparison where the core plpython falls down
(if it does) against the plpython3u implementation

I can't speak to your code quality, that is going to have to be someone
else.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks.

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.