On 2/5/10, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>  The issues here have already been identified:  the Perl DBI is an excellent
> spec, while the Python one is so weak everybody ends up needing their own
> extensions to it.  And then portability *even among Python PostgreSQL
> drivers* goes out the window.

Well, no.   You are overplaying on the DBI angle.  If the driver can
offer via the minimal DB-API the same features the DBI driver
can offer, then the DBI API is bloated, not the minimal API weak...

Not that DB-API is perfect, a way to toggle prepare and db cursors
on/off in per-query basis would be good to have, but thats mostly it.
Rest of extra features (COPY) need to be done as extensions anyway.

But all that is off-topic to the current driver suckiness.

The problems with Python drivers are that they fail to implement
even the minimal DB-API 2.0:

- correctly, across all interesting data types.
  PygreSQL (bytea).
  pg8000 (does rollback after query fails - WTF).
  None of the drivers seem to support both array and tuple.

- robustly.  Psycopg2 - their misguided attempt to turn DB-API
  calls optionally async cost their stability big-time as it
  complexified their codebase.  It got stable around 2.0.[678].
  I'm not holding my breath on the other ones.
  Fear the fancy API-s.

- with threadsafety level > 1.  (I don't care, but seems in some
  circles it's necessary.)

Note how many ways a driver can suck without stepping above
basic DB-API 2.0.

> If somebody built a BSD/MIT licensed driver
> that replaces every useful feature of all the forks, with no major problems,
> and a couple of major projects switched over to it (think "Skype" level
> big), maybe this mess could get resolved.  I think it would take someone
> already familiar with the major issues involved a couple of months of
> regular work to make any serious progress on it.

Yeah, but the problem here is that there actually is not a problem.
Psycopg license is not bad, just confusing on first
sight.  And website problem can be fix by advertising
 http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Psycopg as new website...

If your requirement is BSD license, then probably getting PyGreSQL
into shape would be faster than writing from scratch.
Main dev effort would be writing Postgres-specific DB-API 2.0
testsuite anyway.  It's likely that actual improvements needed
would be small.

Also I would suggest to match Psycopg extensions API, that would
make it usable to much broader audience.  (Eg: PygreSql does
not offer COPY extensions via the DB-API 2.0 API.  It would be
good to match Psycopg here, instead inventing new API.)


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to