On Friday 24 July 2009 01:23:40 James Pye wrote: > Here are the features that I plan/hope to implement before submitting > any patch: > > * Native Typing [Python types that represent Postgres types] > * Reworked function structure (Python modules, not function fragments) > * Improved SQL interfaces (prepared statement objects[2]) > * Better SRF support(?) (uses iterators, will support composites, > vpc & mat) > * Direct function calls (to other Postgres functions) > * IST support (with xact(): ...) > * Full tracebacks for Python exceptions(CONTEXT support) > * Cached bytecode (presuming a "procache" attributes patch would be > acceptable[3])
While various of these ideas may be good, I think you are setting yourself up for a rejection. There is a lot of plpython code already out there, and many years have gone into debugging plpython to work well, so rewriting everything and setting everyone up for a flag day, or requiring the parallel maintenance of old and new versions of plpython is not going to work. Plus, tying all of this up with Python 3 will make totally sure that no one expect a minority will be able to use it. As far as I can tell, most of the features you list above could very well be implemented in the current language handler, using separate, isolated patches. I don't see why everything needs to be written from scratch. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
