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. 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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
