On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 20:06 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > 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.
I think it is important to remember that the current version of PL/python is pretty weak compared to its counter parts (Specifically PL/Perl). If the new version, is adequately written to community standards and increases PL/Python's capabilities we need to seriously consider it. If we can address any issues with this module, let's commit it as Pl/pythonng3 or something. Anyway, I am +1 on reviewing this patch for viability. I would love to never touch plPerl for advanced procedures again. Joshua D. Drake -- 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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
