On 07/02/2013 01:54 AM, Luis Carvalho wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 18:15 -0400, Luis Carvalho wrote:
The project is maintained -- I don't know how to say when something is
well-maintained, but small frequency of code updates is not one of my
criteria;
The bug tracker c
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 18:15 -0400, Luis Carvalho wrote:
> > The project is maintained -- I don't know how to say when something is
> > well-maintained, but small frequency of code updates is not one of my
> > criteria;
>
> The bug tracker contains bugs about build proble
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 18:15 -0400, Luis Carvalho wrote:
> The project is maintained -- I don't know how to say when something is
> well-maintained, but small frequency of code updates is not one of my
> criteria;
The bug tracker contains bugs about build problems with PG 8.4, 9.2, and
9.3, which
Hi all,
Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:29 AM, james wrote:
> > On 01/07/2013 02:43, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >>
> >> In essence, you'd have to use another implementation. CPython guys
> >> have left it very clear they don't intend to "fix" that, as they don't
> >> consider it a b
On 7/1/13 1:29 AM, james wrote:
> Given how useful it is to have a scripting language that can be used
> outside
> of the database as well as inside it, would it be reasonable to consider
> 'promoting' pllua?
You can start promoting pllua by making it work with current PostgreSQL
versions. It has
On 2013-06-30 22:43:52 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Not only that, the CPython interpreter is rather fuzzy about the
> division between interpreters. You can initialize multiple
> interpreters, but they share a lot of state, so you can never fully
> separate them. You'd have some state from the u
On 07/01/2013 07:53 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:29 AM, james wrote:
>> On 01/07/2013 02:43, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>> In essence, you'd have to use another implementation. CPython guys
>>> have left it very clear they don't intend to "fix" that, as they don't
>>> consider
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:29 AM, james wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 02:43, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>
>> In essence, you'd have to use another implementation. CPython guys
>> have left it very clear they don't intend to "fix" that, as they don't
>> consider it a bug. It's just how it is.
>
> Given how usef
On 01/07/2013 02:43, Claudio Freire wrote:
In essence, you'd have to use another implementation. CPython guys
have left it very clear they don't intend to "fix" that, as they don't
consider it a bug. It's just how it is.
Given how useful it is to have a scripting language that can be used outsid
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-30 14:42:24 +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
>> On 30 June 2013 14:31, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
>> > > > python does not any any sort of reliable sandbox, so there i
On 30 June 2013 14:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-30 14:42:24 +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> > On 30 June 2013 14:31, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> > > > > python does not any any sort of reliable sandbox, so there is no
On 2013-06-30 14:42:24 +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 14:31, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> > > > python does not any any sort of reliable sandbox, so there is no
> > plpython,
> > > > only plpythonu - hence only one i
On 30 June 2013 14:31, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> > > python does not any any sort of reliable sandbox, so there is no
> plpython,
> > > only plpythonu - hence only one interpreter per backend is needed.
> > >
> > Is there any tra
On 06/30/2013 08:18 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
python does not any any sort of reliable sandbox, so there is no
plpython, only plpythonu - hence only one interpreter per backend
is needed.
Is there any track of the discussion that there is no way to make the
sandbox? I managed to cr
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> > python does not any any sort of reliable sandbox, so there is no plpython,
> > only plpythonu - hence only one interpreter per backend is needed.
> >
> Is there any track of the discussion that there is no way to make the
> sandbox? I
On 30 June 2013 14:13, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 06/30/2013 07:49 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
>
>> I'm reading through plperl and plpython implementations and I don't
>> understand the way they work.
>>
>> Comments for plperl say that there are two interpreters (trusted and
>> untrusted) for each us
On 06/30/2013 07:49 AM, Szymon Guz wrote:
I'm reading through plperl and plpython implementations and I don't
understand the way they work.
Comments for plperl say that there are two interpreters (trusted and
untrusted) for each user session, and they are stored in a hash.
Plpython version
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Szymon Guz wrote:
> I'm reading through plperl and plpython implementations and I don't
> understand the way they work.
>
> Comments for plperl say that there are two interpreters (trusted and
> untrusted) for each user session, and they are stored in a ha
I'm reading through plperl and plpython implementations and I don't
understand the way they work.
Comments for plperl say that there are two interpreters (trusted and
untrusted) for each user session, and they are stored in a hash.
Plpython version looks quite different, there is no such global h
19 matches
Mail list logo