On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: > > the proposal includes that only qmark and named are available. There would > be no pyformat, format, numeric.
What you said before doesn't seem the same: On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: > there's no reason a DBAPI can't keep a particular paramstyle, we just want to > make it so that *all* DBAPIs definitely support "named" and "qmark". The > rest are just optional. You seem suggesting psycopg MUST offer qmark and MAY (at its own discretion) offer pyformat. No: leaving this choice open is insanely bad. If dbapi wants to take a position it should mandate one format with a carefully specified syntax and reject any other formats. If a driver wanted to implement support for a different placeholder syntax (e.g. for query pass-through) it must be do such outside the dbapi realm and tools like SQLAlchemy can be implemented using the DBAPI part only, without resorting to driver-specific dialects. -- Daniele _______________________________________________ DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig
