On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 09:14 +0100, Massa, Harald Armin wrote:
> And we should not forget to look for the reasons for the incubation of
> that many pure-Python drivers:

All very good points. That's why the doc I wrote:


is specifically targeted at libpq-based drivers (which is repeated
several times).

I think it would be valuable to have a complete, pure-python driver
available (like the JDBC driver). That's a large project, however.

People who use a different python implementation understand that
libraries might not be as plentiful. It will be a while before there are
as many pure-python libraries as there are pure-java libraries.

Right now what we need is a driver toward which we can confidently
direct cPython users. It's faster to wrap libpq than to write a complete
driver. And if we don't have such a driver, we risk alienating an
important community for postgresql growth. So, the cost is lower and the
benefits are higher for wrapping libpq for the cPython users. At least,
that seems to be the case right now; things may change in the future.

        Jeff Davis

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

Reply via email to