Re: Python 3.1 support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 17:28:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2009-11-18 17:48:31 Re: Python 3.1 support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-18 17:23:28 Re: Patch - Reference Function Parameters by Name