On 2/10/16 12:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'd think it's better to not break backwards compatibility,
> but I'm also far from a python expert. It might well be worth adding
> a plpython GUC to control the behavior so that there's a migration
> path forward, or maybe do something like the 'import __future__'
> that python is doing to ease migration to python 3.
>
>
>
> Iacob is maybe little bit too defensive - but why not. The
> implementation of GUC should not be hard. I see it as best way now.
> Tomorrow I'll try to find last versions of this patch in mailbox and try
> to design compatibility mode.
BTW, there's other cases where we're going to face this compatibility
issue. The one I know of right now is that current handling of composite
types containing arrays in plpython sucks, but there's no way to change
that without breaking compatibility.
I don't see any good way to handle these compatibility things other than
giving each one its own pl-specific GUC, but I figured I'd at least
mention it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
