On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:12 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Friday 29 May 2009 03:53:17 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian escribió:
> > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote:
> > > > > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
> > >
> > > You usually have to rewrite when you have not done refactoring as part
> > > of development; PGDG does refactoring regularly.
> >
> > Except that plpython stagnates, save for minor hacks here and there.
>
> But that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it. Of course there
> is, but those are isolated problems that can be fixed when desired. For
> example, it might just be that those who use it don't have use of INOUT
> parameters or table returns.
Yeah. And I _almost_ fixed those. Just did not have time to make the
final push to clean up things enough to be acceptable for patching back
into core.
And fixing those actually meant refactoring those parts into using newer
structures and functions :)
And I also think that pl/python, even for python 2.x does need lots of
refactoring in most places in order to be maintainable.
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training