Re: plpython3

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: James William Pye <lists@jwp.name>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, jd@commandprompt.com, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-02-01T18:53:23Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> To recap the votes I've seen on this thread and elsewhere:

> - JD is very enthusiastic about this patch
> - So is the OP
> - Josh Berkus and I are both dubious about having two in-core PL/pythons
> - Peter Eisentraut prefers the original implementation
> - Greg Smith thinks (if I'm not putting words into his mouth) that
> this might be worth considering, but not for 9.0

One other problem with accepting this to be parallel with the existing
plpython is that there's a name conflict: Peter's work to allow the
existing PL to use Python 3 has already claimed the name "plpython3".
Whether it's to be distributed in core or separately, I think something
needs to be done about that.

The first thought that comes to mind is "plpythonng", following a
tradition established by the tcl client rewrite among others ... but
that double n doesn't read very well.

			regards, tom lane