Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer?
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1140867521.3716.27.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer? (Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2006-02-25 kell 10:09, kirjutas Tino Wildenhain: > James Robinson schrieb: > > I see neilc has hacked on it very recently to reduce memory leaks. I > > take that as both good and bad signs. > > > > We're a [ small ] python shop, and would be most interested in being > > able to simplify our life through doing some things in plpython instead > > of pl/pgsql where appropriate. Keeping our constants and so forth in > > the appropriate python module would make things ever so much simpler > > here and there at the very least. > > > > But we've never hacked on the backend, nor at the C python API level. > > But I see no reason why not to start now -- lurked here for many a > > year. For example, I see that plpython functions cannot be declared to > > return void. That can't be too tough to remedy. Implementing the DBI > > 2.0 API interface to SPI can wait another day. > > Also have a look at: http://python.projects.postgresql.org/ > it needs some more love too but has high potential. Yes, this one seems to be the pl/python done right :) But it also suffers a little from trying to do too much at one time, and so moves a little slow :( > Maybe it can become next generation pl/pythonu? Would be nice. I guess that it would need to be at least somewhat backwards compatible to replace current pl/pythonu. > And with even more love the restricted python from zope could > be ported so there could be a pl/python again :-) That would be nice, but actually not very high on my list of wishes, as I mostly want to use plpythony as a replacement for writing C funtions, and we probably will never have "restricted C" -------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: