On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 01:19 +0200, Peter Eisentraut 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. > > We then create three language definition templates: > > plpythonu -> plpython.so > plpython2u -> plpython2.so > plpython3u -> plpython3.so >
> > Comments? Well as a Python guy... makes sense to me :) Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers