Joshua D. Drake 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.
More "pythonic" in its internal processing or in its user interface?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
