On ons, 2009-11-18 at 08:43 -0800, Nathan Boley wrote: > > Again, I'm only one user. But so far I haven't seen anyone else speak > > up here, and clearly accepting this for inclusion will need nontrivial > > convincing. > > Well, FWIW, I am excited about better type integration.
Let's clarify, as there are two different models being proposed here. The first approach, which is currently implemented (and some patches pending), is to convert a PostgreSQL type to the "nearest" Python type. For example, text to string, int to int, array to list, timestamp to datetime.datetime, etc. The other approach, which is what James Pye's new implementation proposes (as I understand it), is to convert PostgreSQL types into specially made Python objects, such as Postgres.types.record or Postgres.types.timestamp. > 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.*? Yeah, see later discussion about how to resolve this. But I think in practice, unless you use lots of print statements in your stored procedures (?!?), this problem is exaggerated. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
