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

Re: plpython3

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpython3
Date: 2010-01-13 04:06:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> So it seems to me that the threshold question for this patch is - do
> we think it's a good idea to maintain two implementations of PL/python
> in core?

Not really, no.  This is why we need PGAN ;-)

If the new implementation is *better* that the existing PL/python, I
could see eventually replacing it.  It wouldn't be the first time that a
rewrite exceeded the original tool.

However, I'm not in a position to judge quality.

--Josh Berkus

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2010-01-13 04:11:48
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-01-13 03:55:24
Subject: Re: Streaming replication status

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