On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > My argument would be now, what is the benefit of the James Pye version > over our version. James can you illustrate succinctly why we should be > supporting a new version?
Doing so, succinctly, is unfortunately difficult. It is primarily a matter of comparing features, AFAICT. And, furthermore, some features may not be useful to some users. It exposes additional functionality that should *not* be incrementally developed in plpython as it would break applications. This was the point of trying to move forward with it for Python 3. Function Modules: - Does away with the need for GD/SD (more natural Python environment). - Allows tracebacks (tracebacks are useful, right?) to implemented easily. - Does *not* expose a bastardized variant of the language by pretending that "modules/script files" can return and yield. - Helps to promote the Python tenet of being explicit. Native Typing: - Provides PG type introspection not available in any other PL, AFAIK. - Improves efficiency in some cases (conversion must be _explicitly_ called for) - MD Array support. - Composites are a sequence and a mapping. Other features: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP:plpython3 Aside from function modules and native typing, many of plpython3's features could be implemented incrementally. However, I had a chance to sprint and they are available now in a new implementation. I did so, rather than improving plpython, because I believe that native typing and function modules are very useful. I'm not sure this fulfills your request, but, hopefully, it's a start. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
