On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 00:36, Vladimir Ryabtsev wrote:
>
> Awesome, thanks.
>
> It would be great if it worked out of the box, as in other drivers.
I do agree.
I have much more experience with the text format, and in my
understanding not all the types support binary I/O. But my
understanding cou
Awesome, thanks.
It would be great if it worked out of the box, as in other drivers.
Appreciate your efforts.
Vladimir
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 16:24, Daniele Varrazzo
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 21:59, Vladimir Ryabtsev
> wrote:
>
> > psycopg2 returns the 'result' as a basic string, while
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 21:59, Vladimir Ryabtsev wrote:
> psycopg2 returns the 'result' as a basic string, while
> in asyncpg and py-postgresql I have structured data
> (roughly 'List[Tuple[int, List[str]]]').
>
> I tried the same in psycopg3 and it is little bit better, but
> not entirely: it sho
Hello,
I have tried psycopg3 very briefly and I have a question.
I have a couple of use cases in systems I currently work with
that prevented (or seriously limited) usage of psycopg2, so
I had to use other drivers. This generally relates to accessing
composite types that you can construct on-the-
On 10/11/20, Daniele Varrazzo (daniele.varra...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 03:22, Christophe Pettus wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 9, 2020, at 19:20, Daniele Varrazzo
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >Choices to cast Python ``int`` type:
> >
> > Is it absurd to make the choice at execution ti
> My particular question is regarding '-2' score for mapping numbers
> to 'unknown'.
>
> Why do you consider it such an important use-case? In my opinion,
> such usage is just waste of resources and traffic,
I am sometimes round-tripping magic constants to tell which part of a, say,
UNION actual
> I've added comparison tables with the choices available.
Nice article!
I see you have assigned weights to the upsides and downsides
and now these weights are going to determine the winner.
My particular question is regarding '-2' score for mapping numbers
to 'unknown'.
Why do you consider it s
As long as psycopg2 is not disappearing anywhere, psycopg3 seems better.
New users will interpret psycopg2 as "more advanced psycopg".
Vladimir
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 10:06, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 11/10/20 9:12 AM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have received some concerned voi
On 11/10/20 9:12 AM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
Hello,
I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called
"psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3
transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each
other. Sorry, Fibonacci...
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:12 PM Daniele Varrazzo
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called
> "psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3
> transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each
> other.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 18:45, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
> > version number?
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
For what is worth my opinion, I, too, think psycopg alone is ok.
Ciao.
Marco.
On 10/11/20 18:12, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
Hello,
I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called
"psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3
transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each
other. Sorry, Fibonacci...
Th
On 11/10/20 9:24 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
On 10/11/20, Daniele Varrazzo (daniele.varra...@gmail.com) wrote:
Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
version number?
Personally I think the "3" in "psycopg3" is clearer than simply
"psycopg" in relation to this
On 10/11/20, Daniele Varrazzo (daniele.varra...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
> version number?
Personally I think the "3" in "psycopg3" is clearer than simply
"psycopg" in relation to this being an evolution of the psycopg2
package.
Ro
Hello,
I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called
"psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3
transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each
other. Sorry, Fibonacci...
The rationale behind having the 2 in the package na
15 matches
Mail list logo
