Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > To recap the votes I've seen on this thread and elsewhere:
> - JD is very enthusiastic about this patch > - So is the OP > - Josh Berkus and I are both dubious about having two in-core PL/pythons > - Peter Eisentraut prefers the original implementation > - Greg Smith thinks (if I'm not putting words into his mouth) that > this might be worth considering, but not for 9.0 One other problem with accepting this to be parallel with the existing plpython is that there's a name conflict: Peter's work to allow the existing PL to use Python 3 has already claimed the name "plpython3". Whether it's to be distributed in core or separately, I think something needs to be done about that. The first thought that comes to mind is "plpythonng", following a tradition established by the tcl client rewrite among others ... but that double n doesn't read very well. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers