Re: Python 3.1 support

On ons, 2009-11-18 at 12:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yes. That's exactly what I was complaining about upthread. I'm not
> >> a Python user, but from what I can gather of the 2-to-3 changes,
> >> having to choose one at package build time is going to be a disaster.
>
> > Agreed. We really need to have a plpython and plpython3.
>
> Peter was concerned about duplicative maintenance effort, but what I
> think this patch shows is that (at least for the near future) both
> could be built from a single source file. What we need is configure
> and makefile support to do that.

By the way, it occurred to me that having two different versions of
libpython loaded into the same process is probably not going to work
sanely. So whatever solution we come up with for the Python 3
transition, the possibilities for a jolly back-and-forth are probably
going to be quite limited.