| From: | james <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: plpython implementation |
| Date: | 2013-07-01 05:29:32 |
| Message-ID: | 51D113BC.7000004@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/07/2013 02:43, Claudio Freire wrote:
> In essence, you'd have to use another implementation. CPython guys
> have left it very clear they don't intend to "fix" that, as they don't
> consider it a bug. It's just how it is.
Given how useful it is to have a scripting language that can be used outside
of the database as well as inside it, would it be reasonable to consider
'promoting' pllua?
My understanding is that it (lua) is much cleaner under the hood (than
CPython).
Although I do recognise that Python as a whole has always had more traction.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-07-01 05:53:34 | Re: plpython implementation |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-07-01 05:12:25 | Re: [PATCH] big test separation POC |