On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Mike Orr <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why are you putting () around the fields? Is that even legal in SQL > for a SELECT field list? Yes it's legal. > It sounds like you're dismissing libraries > because of a few uncommon edge cases. Which makes me wonder if your > main goal is to pass judgement on the libraries rather than finding > something that'll work good enough in an application. > I didn't dismiss them; I was under a tight time limit and found finally that psycopg v1 worked just well enough to use for the application. > > You can always file a bug report if you think the library is > incorrect, or search the library's mailing list to see if it has been > reported before and what the developers' attitude is. > > Yes, I will do that next week after I set up some simple cases that show the bugs. Some of this seems to only occur with large numbers of fields, but that's what I have to deal with in this application. > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Mark McWiggins > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It may work if coded carefully around its bugs. The most egregious > example I > > found was that instead of > > returning a tuple with the field values expected after doing > > SELECT (field1, field2, field3) from table > > it returns the STRING with those fields in it, for example > > '(8,"just a second, dammit",9)' > > that has to be unpacked programmatically. This happens in both psycopg > and > > psycopg2. > > > -- > Mike Orr <[email protected]> > > -- Mark McWiggins 425-369-8286 (cell)
