Re: Python 3.1 support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Python 3.1 support
Date: 2009-11-18 17:06:58
Message-ID: 21534.1258564018@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Also, I am a little skeptical about this patch. I am sorry if this has
> already been discussed, but would this mean that I need to choose
> whether pl/python is built against Python 2.* or Python 3.*?

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-11-18 17:09:52 Re: RFC for adding typmods to functions
Previous Message Nathan Boley 2009-11-18 16:43:14 Re: Python 3.1 support