Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On May 29, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Friday 29 May 2009 04:06:14 Andrew Dunstan wrote: Otherwise, I'm not too keen simply to throw Python 2.x overboard until it's no longer common on platforms people are likely to want to install Postgres on, if that's what's implied by th

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:12 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Friday 29 May 2009 03:53:17 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian escribió: > > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote: > > > > > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Andrew Dunstan writes: > David Blewett wrote: >> I brought this up last August [1]. Zope has a working sandbox that >> they include in their distribution. >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9d1f8d830808041008v50104fd8p6181d5ddce85...@mail.gmail.com >> > How many python installations

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

David Blewett wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: Does Python 3 have some sort of usable sandbox that would mean we could have a trusted plpython? I brought this up last August [1]. Zope has a working sandbox that they include

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Does Python 3 have some sort of usable sandbox that would mean we could > have a trusted plpython? I brought this up last August [1]. Zope has a working sandbox that they include in their distribution. David Blewett 1. http://archives.p

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:06:14PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Does Python 3 have some sort of usable sandbox that would mean we could > have a trusted plpython? Not sure if people are aware of object-capability based approaches to security. A guy called Tav has come up with some code that co

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Friday 29 May 2009 04:06:14 Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Otherwise, I'm not too keen simply to throw Python 2.x overboard until > it's no longer common on platforms people are likely to want to install > Postgres on, if that's what's implied by the original question. My guess is that we will need to

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Friday 29 May 2009 03:53:17 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian escribió: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote: > > > > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? > > > > > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

No. Still no sandbox. -Caleb On 5/28/09 6:06 PM, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote: Does Python 3 have some sort of usable sandbox that would mean we could have a trusted plpython? Otherwise, I'm not too keen simply to throw Python 2.x overboard until it's no longer common on platforms people are likely

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Alvaro Herrera wrote: Bruce Momjian escribió: Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote: Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html You usually

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Bruce Momjian escribió: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote: > > > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? > > > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html > > You usually have to rewrite when you have not d

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote: > > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html You usually have to rewrite when you have not done refactoring as part of development

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On May 3, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html Good read. =) However, complete rewrite being relative in this case: WIP: http://github.com/jwp/postgresql-plpython3/tree/c804e693b6a0df98c0e5c465e75ba2e9014ebf37/src/pl/plpython3

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Monday 06 April 2009 02:10:59 James Pye wrote: > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:10 PM, James Pye wrote: > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? I've > been fiddling with a HEAD branch including the plpy code in a github repo. > (nah it dunt compile yet: bitrot and been busy with a 3.x driver. ;) I'd love to see this. I

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:30 AM, James Pye wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 5:09 AM, David Blewett wrote: >> >> I'd love to see this. > > yep, once I get 0.9 of the driver out the door, I'll probably focus on this. > > It's the perfect time for a rewrite.. I really don't want to see the 2.x > version

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

James Pye writes: > Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? I've always thought that plpython.c was a bit on the hackish side. If we do decide we have to make plpython2 and plpython3 separate languages, it'd be pretty easy to just start over with a whole new implem

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Apr 5, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Hm, did you read the link I cited? It's not so surprising that 3.0 should have broken distutils, but what I found distressing is that they fixed distutils and then 3.0.1 broke it *again*. I stand by my opinion that Python 3 isn't stable yet. Ye

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Marko Kreen writes: > On 4/4/09, Tom Lane wrote: >> So my conclusion is that Python 3.0 is much too wet behind the ears for >> us to worry about in PG 8.4. I'd guess that we should come back to the >> issue towards the end of 2009, and perhaps think about back-porting >> after we have something

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On 4/4/09, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0. But > > note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not > > actually work. It looks like several symbols have been removed or > > changed. It woul

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Tom Lane wrote: > I thought I would experiment with this a bit. I got past Python's > "configure; make; make install" okay, but got no further than here > with building PG: Consequently, I have removed the Python 3.0 item from the open items list and added a link to this thread to the TODO item

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Peter Eisentraut writes: > I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0. But > note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not > actually work. It looks like several symbols have been removed or > changed. It would be good if the Python pundits around

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0. But note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not actually work. It looks like several symbols have been removed or changed. It would be good if the Python pu

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0. But > note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not > actually work. It looks like several symbols have been removed or > changed. It would be good if the Python pundits around he

Re: [HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 11:38 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0. But > note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not > actually work. It looks like several symbols have been removed or > changed. It would be g

[HACKERS] Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0. But note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not actually work. It looks like several symbols have been removed or changed. It would be good if the Python pundits around here could take a look. (I have