| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-01 20:20:39 | Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-02-01 20:12:41 | Re: plpython3 |