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

Re: plpython3

From: David Blewett <david(at)dawninglight(dot)net>
To: James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>
Cc: 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>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpython3
Date: 2010-01-17 22:15:47
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM, James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name> wrote:
> The effect of this is that every time the FUNCTION is called from PG, the import statements are ran, a new class object, UrlOpener, is created, and a new function object, translate, is created. Granted, a minor amount of overhead in this case, but the point is that in order to avoid it the author would have to use SD:
> if "urlopener" in SD:
>  UrlOpener = SD["urlopener"]
> else:
>  class UrlOpener(urllib.UrlOpener):
>  ...
>  SD["urlopener"] = UrlOpener
> While some may consider this a minor inconvenience, the problem is that *setup code is common*, so it's, at least, a rather frequent, minor inconvenience.
> With function modules, users have a module body to run any necessary setup code.

Coming from a Python developer perspective, this is indeed an
improvement. I always thought the whole SD/GD thing was a little odd.
Doing the setup at the module level and relying on the interpreter to
keep it cached is much more "Pythonic" and is a common idiom.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-17 23:22:27
Subject: Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2010-01-17 22:03:00
Subject: is this a bug?

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