| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Python 3.1 support |
| Date: | 2009-12-14 18:42:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1260816132.4536.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> On tor, 2009-11-12 at 16:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > There was considerable debate earlier about whether we wanted to treat
> > Python 3 as a separate PL so it could be available in parallel with
> > plpython 2, because of the user-level coding incompatibilities. It
> > looks like this patch simply ignores that problem. What is going to
> > happen to plpython functions that depend on 2.x behavior?
>
> I have a proposal for how to handle this, and a prototype patch
> attached. This follows essentially what the CPython distribution itself
> does, which will make this tolerably easy to follow for users.
>
> We install plpython as plpython2.so or plpython3.so, depending on the
> version used to build it. Then, plpython.so is a symlink to
> plpython2.so.
So here is the potentially final patch for this, including the original
port of plpython.c itself, build system adjustments, and documentation.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-12-14 18:45:44 | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-14 18:40:34 | Re: Hot Standby, release candidate? |