[DB-SIG] Popy - Psycopg - PyPgSQL - PyGreSQL

Magnus Lycka magnus@thinkware.se
Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:20:49 +0200

At 05:28 2002-10-01 -0700, hazmat wrote:
>imho, i would only use pyscopg or pypgsql. of the four they are under the=
>active development.

It seems popy might merge with pyscopg?

Is there a good reason why pyscopg or pypgsql can't
become the standard driver which is included in
the standard PostgreSQL database? What is so important
with PyGreSQL if "everybody" thinks that it shouldn't
be used?

I wrote:
> > A library or framework that
> > is built in python and use PostgreSQL might use
> > any of these four drivers.
>not really, the limitations/bugs of some of the drivers will become=

Oh? Why does PyDO use PyGreSQL then?

>ideally their would be a driver framework with plugins, and we'd only have=
>worry about the portability of our sql. as it is, most people implement=
>own abstraction layer, as it does not seem apparent to me, that the db-sig=
>going to promote db-api from interface recommendations to framework.

I'm afraid you might be right.

I have a feeling that this is somehow a consequence
of how open source projects work.

Those who are actually doing the real work of
developing and maintaining database drivers are
typically happy with what they have produced,
and see few reasons to do things differently.

Those (like me) who just want to _use_ the drivers
in the most convenient way are typically to busy
coding other stuff to really make a concrete impact
on how the drivers work... It's not as if we pay
the bills of the driver developers...

Well, I shouldn't complain. Things are great really,
and however much we improve stuff there will always
be more things to complain over.

Magnus Lyck=E5, Thinkware AB
=C4lvans v=E4g 99, SE-907 50 UME=C5
tel: 070-582 80 65, fax: 070-612 80 65
http://www.thinkware.se/  mailto:magnus@thinkware.se