| From: | James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name> | 
|---|---|
| To: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | WIP: plpython3 | 
| Date: | 2009-07-23 22:23:40 | 
| Message-ID: | [email protected] | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
http://github.com/jwp/postgresql-plpython3/tree/plpython3  [branch  
name: plpython3]
[src/pl/plpython3]   (Yeah, I'm going to try to move it to  
git.postgresql.org soon-ish)
In a recent thread[1], Peter said:
    That also means that maintaining a separate, parallel code base
    for a Python 3 variant can only be acceptable if it gives major  
advantages.
Here are the features that I plan/hope to implement before submitting  
any patch:
  * Native Typing [Python types that represent Postgres types]
  * Reworked function structure (Python modules, not function fragments)
  * Improved SQL interfaces (prepared statement objects[2])
  * Better SRF support(?) (uses iterators, will support composites,  
vpc & mat)
  * Direct function calls (to other Postgres functions)
  * IST support (with xact(): ...)
  * Full tracebacks for Python exceptions(CONTEXT support)
  * Cached bytecode (presuming a "procache" attributes patch would be  
acceptable[3])
The first two features are why a new PL should be incorporated.
Native typing alone is that desirable because it allows for Postgres  
type semantics to be retained inside Python. Using conversion for some  
types--the existing solution in plpython--may not be desirable due to  
potential inconsistencies in value. A notable example is that Python's  
datetime.timedelta cannot support interval's month field. And from a  
performance perspective, creating Python objects representing a  
parameter is approximately the cost of allocating memory for a Python  
object and datumCopy.
The second feature, function structure, is actually new to the PL.  
Originally PL/Py took a pl/python-like approach to triggers and  
functions. *Currently*, I want to change procedures to be Python  
modules with specific entry points used to handle an event. Mere  
invocation: "main". Or, a trigger event: "before_insert",  
"after_insert", "before_update", etc.
So, a regular function might look like:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo(int) RETURNS int LANGUAGE plpython3u AS
$python$
import Postgres
def main(i):
     return i
$python$;
Despite the signature repetition, this is an improvement for the user  
and the developer. The user now has an explicit initialization section  
that is common to Python(it's a module). The PL developer no longer  
needs to munge the source, and can work with common Python APIs to  
manage and introspect the procedure's module(...thinking: procedure  
settings..).
A trigger function might look like:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION trig() RETURNS TRIGGER LANGUAGE plpython3u AS
$python$
import Postgres
def check(i):
     ...
def before_insert(new):
     ...
def before_update(new, old):
     # The default action is for the manipulation to occur,
     # so users must explicitly raise FilterEvent in order to
     # stop a row from being inserted, updated, deleted.
     if check(new["column_name"]):
         raise StopEvent()
def after_delete(old):
     ...
$python$;
Thoughts? [...it still has a *long* ways to go =]
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg01376.php
[2] http://python.projects.postgresql.org/docs/0.9/driver.html#prepared-statement-interface-points
[3] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-05/ 
msg01160.php   (I think a new column would be wise)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-07-23 22:29:24 | Re: When is a record NULL? | 
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-07-23 22:19:36 | When is a record NULL? |