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

Re: plpython3

From: James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpython3
Date: 2010-01-14 04:39:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 1. It's not just a rewrite, it's an incompatible rewrite that will
> present significant user-visible behavioral differences.  So replacing
> the current implementation wholesale would produce massive breakage
> for anyone actually using PL/python in production.

Right. That was the point of trying to leverage Python 3 to make the distinction. Most people will need to update their functions if they are moving to Python 3. And for the larger chunks of code, the hard stuff, the amount of change required is likely significant already.

<snip some>
> Given these two facts, it's hard for me to see how we could decide to
> REMOVE the current implementation and replace it with the new one.  So
> the most we could do is maintain them side by side, and then you have
> to ask, why?

My original hope was that plpython would be maintained for several years to come and when Python 3 started picking up steam, we would deprecate plpython. If people still wanted to use it, they could continue using the older version of PG and/or someone could continue to maintain plpython out of core for legacy support.

<snip/maintaining out of core>
> Sure, his code won't get as much exposure that way,


Try next to none. The existence of core's implementation makes competing *very* difficult, IMO. Thinking of something along the lines: "Why would I use/contribute to your implementation when core has one?" And, all I can say in response is, "Check out my features." Subsequently, they will probably weigh the added risk of choosing the loner's implementation and come to the conclusion that using core's would be safer in the long term. I can't fault that line of reasoning, so ISTM that it would be difficult to "sell".

> but it's been posted to the mailing list several times now
> over a period of 8 months and nobody has said "oh, wow, this is
> great".

Yeah. :(

In the past, one person showed interest in function modules(Stuart, see the first WIP message), and two others showed interest in native typing(Nathan and Tino). Mr. Drake has also shown some interest in this thread.

But, yes, you are correct. There has been no "wow, this is great" message.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Takahiro ItagakiDate: 2010-01-14 05:30:33
Subject: Re: Pretty printed trigger in psql
Previous:From: James William PyeDate: 2010-01-14 04:12:38
Subject: Re: plpython3

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