Re: plpython3
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plpython3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f071001131115h49e3455eve31d70d9c0dc976f@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: plpython3 (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: plpython3
(James William Pye <lists@jwp.name>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> My argument would be now, what is the benefit of the James Pye version >> over our version. James can you illustrate succinctly why we should be >> supporting a new version? >> >> If there is, I am still all for it, but I am a python bigot. > > Yeah, it's just my viewpoint that we don't want 2 python procedural > languages in core. One should be in core, and one should go on > pgFoundry/PGAN. Which ever one is "better" by some clear definition > should go in core. That was my thinking also. There are a couple of reasons to think that throwing over the current implementation for an new one may not be the right thing to do. 1. It's not just a rewrite, it's an incompatible rewrite that will present significant user-visible behavioral differences. So replacing the current implementation wholesale would produce massive breakage for anyone actually using PL/python in production. 2. Peter Eisentraut, who has put significant time into improving PL/python for this release (see the commit logs), and who is the ONLY committer to work on improving PL/python for this release, has made it clear that he prefers the current implementation. Given these two facts, it's hard for me to see how we could decide to REMOVE the current implementation and replace it with the new one. So the most we could do is maintain them side by side, and then you have to ask, why? It will actually be much easier for James Pye to maintain his code outside core, and if it turns out to be popular and people come back to us and say "hey, why isn't this the default?" then we can revisit the issue. Sure, his code won't get as much exposure that way, but it's been posted to the mailing list several times now over a period of 8 months and nobody has said "oh, wow, this is great". The most we've gotten is several versions of this exchange: Somebody: We should really consider this code, the current code isn't very good. Peter: What's wrong with it? Somebody: <describes some problem, usually fairly vaguely> Peter: Why can't we fix that in the existing code base? <thread ends> I'm not saying a complete rewrite isn't the way to go - I'm just saying that there isn't much evidence at this point that it's really necessary, and I don't think we want to maintain two copies of PL/python unless we're really sure that the new implementation is an improvement. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: