>The pg8000 / bpgsql seem to be toy projects, and anyway you dont >want to use pure-Python drivers in high-performance environments.
I agree that there are some performance-challenges with pure-Python drivers. And we should not forget to look for the reasons for the incubation of that many pure-Python drivers: a) Python is no longer one-language, one-implementation. There are (at least) cPython (the original), Jython (on JVM), IronPython (from Microsoft on CLR), PyPy (Python on Python), Unladen Swallow (from Google on LLVM). In addition the nearly-Pythons as in Cython, RPython and ShedSkin Everything apart from cPython (and possible UnladenSwallow) has its challenges dealing with non-Python extension modules. From a developer standpoint it can be tempting to be able to rely on the same database adapter across more then one implementation b) the stabilization of an Python Application Binary Interface is in early discussion stage; meaning: it will take some time untill a non-Python extension can be usable across Python versions. c-Extensions are allways a major stumbling block on Python-n to Python-(n+1) versions c) Stability. Python code is same-on-same more robust then C-Code, as some of the crash-friendly-problems are eliminated (you cannot allocate memory wrongly within Python, you cannot errorly access memory cross array boundaries...) especially a) is a point to consider when standardizing on a PostgreSQL blessed Python-Postgresql-driver. How will the blessing extend to Jython / Ironpython / PyPy? Harald -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 no fx, no carrier pigeon - %s is too gigantic of an industry to bend to the whims of reality
