| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dropping PL language retains support functions |
| Date: | 2012-03-06 21:47:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1331070475.19112.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2012-03-06 at 16:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On mån, 2012-03-05 at 19:37 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> The exact case is that the user was using plpython2u in PG 9.0, but
> >> the PG 9.1 one-click installer only supplies plpython3u.
> >
> > That seems like a pretty stupid choice to me, if it's true.
> >
> > That doesn't address your issue, but users shouldn't be forced to drop
> > their languages during an upgrade in the first place.
>
> Hmm. I had been thinking that it is only possible to support one or
> the other, thus the need for a compatibility break at some point would
> be forced, but reading the documentation, it seems that it we can ship
> both as long as nobody tries to use both at the same time. I wonder
> why we didn't do that.
Even if only one version were allowed, it would have been way too early
to switch to Python 3.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-06 21:52:01 | Re: Initial 9.2 pgbench write results |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-03-06 21:44:18 | Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database |