Prev: [HACKERS] Implementation of Date/Time Input Interpretation
Next: access method: are disk pages mandatory?
From: Peter Eisentraut on 25 Jun 2010 18:57
On fre, 2010-06-25 at 23:44 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> Has anybody actually researched if it is safe to run python2 and
> python3 in the same address space?

You can't run plpython2 and plpython3 in the same session, because the
libraries are loaded with dlopen(RTLD_GLOBAL) (with RTLD_LOCAL it would
apparently work). But you can use them in different sessions on the
same database, for example.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Robert Haas on 28 Jun 2010 08:14
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> On fre, 2010-06-25 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net> writes:
>> > The problem is apparently that when CREATE LANGUAGE creates a language
>> > from a pg_pltemplate entry, it creates the proname from the tmplhandler
>> > name, and if it finds a fitting proname entry already, it used that one.
>> > So when you create plpython2 first and plpython3 second, the pg_language
>> > entries of the latter point to the pg_proc entries of the former.
>>
>> > If you fix that up manually (create additional pg_proc entries and fix
>> > the pg_language entries to point there), it works better.
>>
>> The fix ought to be to change the function nmes used by plpython3 ...
>
> Right. �What shall we do about the catversion?

We should go ahead and apply this, either with (my vote) or without
(Tom's vote) a catversion bump.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Bruce Momjian on 28 Jun 2010 17:18
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > You could argue it either way. The number of beta testers with
> > plpython3 installations is probably very small, so I'm kinda leaning to
> > just changing the code without a catversion bump. OTOH, if we want to
> > encourage testing of pg_upgrade ...
>
> FWIW, the last bump has led to a lot of testing of pgupgrade.

And fixes, that will appear in 9.0 beta3. :-) Most fixes were related
to platform compile portability.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tom Lane on 28 Jun 2010 18:54
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> You could argue it either way. The number of beta testers with
>>> plpython3 installations is probably very small, so I'm kinda leaning to
>>> just changing the code without a catversion bump. OTOH, if we want to
>>> encourage testing of pg_upgrade ...
>>
>> FWIW, the last bump has led to a lot of testing of pgupgrade.

> And fixes, that will appear in 9.0 beta3. :-) Most fixes were related
> to platform compile portability.

Well, if you think that pg_upgrade has changed materially since beta2,
that would be a good argument for getting some fresh testing for it,
which in turn argues for doing the catversion bump here.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Bruce Momjian on 28 Jun 2010 18:59
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>> You could argue it either way. The number of beta testers with
> >>> plpython3 installations is probably very small, so I'm kinda leaning to
> >>> just changing the code without a catversion bump. OTOH, if we want to
> >>> encourage testing of pg_upgrade ...
> >>
> >> FWIW, the last bump has led to a lot of testing of pgupgrade.
>
> > And fixes, that will appear in 9.0 beta3. :-) Most fixes were related
> > to platform compile portability.
>
> Well, if you think that pg_upgrade has changed materially since beta2,
> that would be a good argument for getting some fresh testing for it,
> which in turn argues for doing the catversion bump here.

Attached are the changes since beta2; they are pretty minor. The good
news is I think all reporters eventually got it working. I assume using
it for beta3 would allow it work even better, and once you have use it
once, using it again is simple.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: [HACKERS] Implementation of Date/Time Input Interpretation
Next: access method: are disk pages mandatory?