Re: plpython3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

James William Pye wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:76769544-E8EF-47F3-9CC7-5EBA7587200B@jwp.name" type="cite"><pre
wrap="">OnJan 13, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">The problem I'm
havingwith this discussion is that every time someone
 
asks what the supposed advantages of this new Python PL are, a feature
list like the above is dumped,   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
I agree that this is unfortunate, but how else can we to discuss the advantages? It boils down to comparing a couple
featurelists, and *maybe* some implementation details. No? </pre></blockquote><br /> Code samples.  You're trying to
unseata well established incumbent here, and you're not ever going to do that with documentation.  Maybe your plpython3
hassome compelling features to it.  I don't know, because even with several thousand lines of basic Python code to my
creditI cannot understand a single one of the arguments you presented for why your implementation is better--except
agreeingthat, yes, tracebacks are useful  And even on that one, I'm not going to take your word on the superiority of
yourimplementation.  You're writing way over people's heads here.  (Doesn't help that your docs link at the bottom of
<aclass="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP:plpython3">http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP:plpython3</a>is broken
either). If one has to be a Python expert to understand your position, you've already lost.<br /><br /> Python code is
easyto read though.  If you'd said "here's a great example of how Function Modules are an improvement over what you can
dowith the current pl/python," that would be infinitely more useful than the list of language trivia related to them. 
Youshould be aiming to put Peter on the spot to respond to claims you make like "you can't do this easily with the
currentimplementation" after showing an elegant bit of code.<br /><br /> One of the things I'm increasingly frustrated
by(and don't take this personally, this is a general comment coming more from the last CF rather than something I mean
tosingle you out for) is how many patch submissions we get that don't have *compelling* examples showing their value. 
Havea better programming approach to something?  Show me the old way and how the new way is better.  Performance
improvement? Provide a complete, self-contained example showing how to demonstrate it.   New type of feature?  Cut and
pastea whole session showing how it's used, with every single command you typed after initdb.<br /><br /> Basically, if
areviewer can't confirm your patch is doing something useful in five minutes and be excited that they've watched
somethinginteresting happen, you're decreasing the chances that your patch will ever go anywhere dramatically.  I hope
thateveryone submitting patches reads <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.depesz.com/">http://www.depesz.com/</a>at least once in a while.  One of the things I really enjoy
abouthis blog is how he shows complete working examples of so many patches.  To pick a standout recent entry, <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2010/01/03/waiting-for-8-5-exclusion-constraints/">http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2010/01/03/waiting-for-8-5-exclusion-constraints/</a>
takes"exclusion constraints"--a feature I didn't follow a bit of the discussion about--and works through the whole
featurewith a series of examples that, while still complicated, are completely self-contained and possible to follow
alonguntil you understand how it all fits together.  Patch submitters should consider it a goal to make life that easy
forthe reviewer stuck with checking their patch out.<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
 
Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:greg@2ndQuadrant.com">greg@2ndQuadrant.com</a>  <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.com">www.2ndQuadrant.com</a>
 
</pre>