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.
