On Nov 15, 2009, at 6:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> but these two features don't excite me at all,
hrm.. at all?
I can see how function modules might look like a half-step backwards from function fragments at first, but the benefits
ofa *natural* initialization section (the module body) was enough to convince me. The added value on the PL developer's
sidewas also compelling. Tracebacks were trivial to implement, and there is no need to munge the function's source. It
seemedlike a win all around...
AFA native typing is concerned, I think the flexibility and potential it offers is useful, no? Already, plpython3
providesproperties on PG's datetime types to access the date_part()'s of the object.
OTOH, for folk who primarily use the PL to access functionality in Python modules(bindings), native typing may be of no
directutility as they will likely need to convert anyways. (If that's your common use-case, then the absence of
interestin native typing is quite understandable.)
[looking at the PL/Python todo list..]
Excepting DB-API and trusted, I believe all the current PL/Python TODOs are fulfilled or N/A in plpython3... ugh, the
docsare not yet complete, but I like to think of them as "better" anyways. :P
> the pain of dealing with a second implementation.
What pain are you anticipating? Maintenance?