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

[Gerhard Häring]

* Magnus Lycka <magnus@thinkware.se> [2002-10-01 15:20 +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 
> >most
> >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?

Being in the PostgreSQL tree could IMO mean that development speed will
be slowed down, because you need to be more careful in the context of
PostgreSQL release cycles, for example. I could be mistaken, though. The
plus, as currently seen with PyGreSQL, is that you get many more testers
and PostgreSQL developers normally not concerned with Python will help,
too, if there are bugs or problems.

Well, maybe I should just send one gigantic patch to replace PyGreSQL
with pyPgSQL ;-)

> What is so important with PyGreSQL if "everybody" thinks that it
> shouldn't be used?

I for one found it took too long for well-known bugs to get fixed:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-10/msg00489.php This
was at the time I still provided win32 binaries of PyGreSQL and I got a
bug report from a win32 user. It turned out that the bug was well-known
for over a year (!). And it wasn't terribly difficult to find, either.
And I've read that even a patch was sent to the mailing list well
before. So I just bypassed the official maintainer and sent my patch to
the PostgreSQL developers. This resulted in quite an interesting
discussion, which also briefly touched the issue PyGreSQl vs. other
Python projects:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2001-08/msg00201.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2001-08/thrd2.php

Especially one guy from Redhat was quite pleased, as he got reports
about this bug from his supported customers before :-)

-- Gerhard