From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |
Date: | 2016-02-10 19:16:07 |
Message-ID: | 56BB8C77.7040802@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/10/16 12:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'd think it's better to not break backwards compatibility,
> but I'm also far from a python expert. It might well be worth adding
> a plpython GUC to control the behavior so that there's a migration
> path forward, or maybe do something like the 'import __future__'
> that python is doing to ease migration to python 3.
>
>
>
> Iacob is maybe little bit too defensive - but why not. The
> implementation of GUC should not be hard. I see it as best way now.
> Tomorrow I'll try to find last versions of this patch in mailbox and try
> to design compatibility mode.
BTW, there's other cases where we're going to face this compatibility
issue. The one I know of right now is that current handling of composite
types containing arrays in plpython sucks, but there's no way to change
that without breaking compatibility.
I don't see any good way to handle these compatibility things other than
giving each one its own pl-specific GUC, but I figured I'd at least
mention it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-02-10 19:17:22 | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-10 19:10:17 | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |