Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> Another thing I wondered about is what we want to do with the extension
> names. Do we want to leave it named plpython3u? Do we want to have a plpython
> that depends on plpython3u?
I think we want to keep plpython3u. Maybe we can point plpythonu
at that, but I'm concerned about the potential for user confusion.
In particular, I think there's a nonzero probability that someone
will choose to maintain plpython2u/plpythonu outside of core,
just because they still don't want to migrate their Python code.
> I'd be inclined to just keep it at plpython3u for now, but there's an argument
> that going for plpython would be better long term: Presumably there will be
> python 4 at some point - but I'd expect that to not be a breaking release,
> given the disaster that python 3 is. Making a non-versioned name better?
Meh. If there is a python 4, I'd expect it to be named that way precisely
because it *is* a breaking release. Why would we set ourselves up for
a repeat of this mess?
regards, tom lane
