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

hazmat hazmat@objectrealms.net
Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:45:38 -0700

On Tuesday 01 October 2002 04:57 am, thierry@nekhem.com wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 05:28:54AM -0700, hazmat wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 October 2002 03:21 am, Magnus Lycka wrote:
> > > At 10:45 2002-10-01 +0200, Jekabs Andrushaitis wrote:
> > > >I am not saying that [psycopg] is best, however my advice is
> > > >not to use Python module supplied with PostgreSQL sources...
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > >
> > > In general I don't mind diversity, but I four
> > > drivers for the same database seems a bit redundant.
> >
> > imho, i would only use pyscopg or pypgsql. of the four they are under the
> > most active development.
> Wrong! PoPy is continuing but slowly its development, exploring new ways
> to make the driver more powerful. I remind you that PoPy's development
> has begun in 2000, so adding quickly more and more features becomes
> difficult. When we began PoPy there was only pygresql. That's right,
> today there are too much drivers for postgresql, and the PoPy team is
> ready to merge its work w/ others teams like psycopg team, to have less
> drivers but more powerful, more featured and more stable!

my apologies if i offended, but i wouldn't consider my statement wrong, as i 
said imho, those two drivers under the most active development. a statement 
which does not preclude development in the other drivers, just their degree. 
as the most recent release of popy was over a year ago, and the public cvs is 
unchanged in over a year, its not hard to see why such a distinction is easy 
to make. 

thank you for the history lesson. having just looked at the public cvs of 
popy, it appears that both pypgsql and psycopg offer more features, i'm 
curious of what benefit from a *code* perspective you think merging the 
codebases if feasible will bring.