On Jul 24, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
I'm not particularly interested in Python 3.x support yet (we are
still back on 2.4, soon to hop to 2.5 or 2.6. For us 3.1 is probably
2 years away at the earliest). I am interested in improved plpython
though.
Two years would hopefully be
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:23 AM, James Pye wrote:
That also means that maintaining a separate, parallel code base
for a Python 3 variant can only be acceptable if it gives major
advantages.
I'm not particularly interested in Python 3.x support yet (we are still back on
2.4, soon to hop
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 04:24 -0700, James Pye wrote:
> I see Python 3 as a good opportunity to change the interfaces and fix
> the design of the PL.
>
> I dunno. I have time to give it some TLC, and I'm not terribly excited
> about trying to tack features onto something that I find kinda gross
On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
While various of these ideas may be good, I think you are setting
yourself up
for a rejection.
Right, I supposed that that may be the case or at least that you would
feel this way based on your messages from the prior thread.
There is
On Friday 24 July 2009 01:23:40 James Pye wrote:
> Here are the features that I plan/hope to implement before submitting
> any patch:
>
> * Native Typing [Python types that represent Postgres types]
> * Reworked function structure (Python modules, not function fragments)
> * Improved SQL in
