Jim Nasby <jim.na...@openscg.com> writes:
> On 4/6/17 8:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given Peter's objections, I don't think this is getting into v10 anyway,
>> so we might as well take a bit more time and do it right.
> Well, Peter's objection is that we're not going far enough in plpython,
> but there's absolutely no way to do more without breaking plpy, which
> seems a non-starter. We should certainly be able to expand the existing
> API to provide even more benefit, but I see no reason to leave the
> performance gain this patch provides on the floor just because there's
> more to be had with a different API.
Personally I'm way more excited about what a SPI feature like this
could do for plpgsql than about what it can do for plpython. If the
latter is what floats your boat, that's fine; but I want a feature
that we can build on for other uses, not a hack that we know we need
to redesign next month.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
