Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/4/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So my conclusion is that Python 3.0 is much too wet behind the ears for
>> us to worry about in PG 8.4. I'd guess that we should come back to the
>> issue towards the end of 2009, and perhaps think about back-porting
>> after we have something working in 8.5.
> It is not "wet" (the new interfaces should be stable), but it is break
> from 2.x series.
Hm, did you read the link I cited? It's not so surprising that 3.0
should have broken distutils, but what I found distressing is that they
fixed distutils and then 3.0.1 broke it *again*. I stand by my opinion
that Python 3 isn't stable yet.
> This means that users of PL/Python should not expect PL/Python to
> automatically work with 3.0. Supporting 3.0 will be a new feature.
> So it's OK to drop it from 8.4.
One other thing that we'll have to seriously consider is whether we
should package python3 as a separate PL, so that people can keep using
their 2.x plpython functions without fear of breakage. I know that the
Fedora guys are currently debating whether to treat it that way, and
I suppose other distros are having or will soon have the same
conversation. Six months from now, there will be some precedents and
some track record for us to look at in making that choice.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
