From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Python 3.1 support |
Date: | 2009-12-14 18:47:34 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070912141047o29d24d77u1d4fe69d8fb26f89@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> 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.
I think you forgot to actually attach it...
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 18:48:53 | Re: Hot Standby, release candidate? |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-14 18:47:09 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |