On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 16:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > Peter Eisentraut escribi?: >> > > On m?n, 2010-02-01 at 12:01 -0800, Nathan Boley wrote: >> > > > I code nearly exclusively in python and C, but I have >> > > > often found pl/python to be very unwieldy. For this reason I often >> > > > use pl/perl or pl/pgsql for problems that, outside of postgres, I >> > > > would always use python. >> > > >> > > I find that curious, because much of the criticism about the current >> > > PL/Python can be traced back to the fact that the implementation used to >> > > be an exact copy of PL/Perl. >> > >> > Perhaps the problem is that PL/Perl used to be unwieldy back when >> > PL/Python was created. PL/Perl has definitely seen a lot more activity. >> >> I would love to know why PL/Python can't be incrementally improved like >> the rest of our code. > > It has been. That is exactly what PeterE has been doing. > > However, if you look at this whole thread, you will see the James has a > very different view of the implementation. One that at least appears to > be more advanced and "pythonic" than our version.
I don't know if the native typing stuff is "more advanced" than our current code or not; that's kind of fuzzy terminology if you think about it. It is, however, a lot different than what we do in the existing PL/python, or, to the best of my knowledge, any of the other PLs with, perhaps, the exception of PL/pgsql. So conceivably someone could submit a PL/perlNG, a PL/lolcodeNG, etc. taking a similar approach. It's worth thinking about how we feel about that. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers