Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I have recently fixed the configure script to recognize Python 3.0.  But 
> note that building and running PL/Python with Python 3.0 does not 
> actually work.  It looks like several symbols have been removed or 
> changed.  It would be good if the Python pundits around here could take 
> a look.

> (I have found Python 3.0 to be very quick and easy to install from 
> source, in case your distribution doesn't have it packaged yet.)

I thought I would experiment with this a bit.  I got past Python's
"configure; make; make install" okay, but got no further than here
with building PG:

checking for python... /home/tgl/python3.0.1/bin/python
checking for Python distutils module... ./configure: line 6946: 21044 Aborted                 "${PYTHON}" -c 'import
distutils'2>&-
 
no
configure: error: distutils module not found
$

Okay, but some research revealed that there does not exist any
working distutils for Python 3.0.1 yet:
http://regebro.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/setuptools-and-easy_install-for-python-3/

If the language is still at the point where they're breaking fundamental
tools with each dot-release, I don't think it's really stable enough for
us to spend effort on :-(

I also found out that my favorite distro is just *starting* to think
about what it will take to migrate to Python 3, and they seem to think
that it's not going to be viable till around Fedora 13 (a year away):
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg00085.html

So my conclusion is that Python 3.0 is much too wet behind the ears for
us to worry about in PG 8.4.  I'd guess that we should come back to the
issue towards the end of 2009, and perhaps think about back-porting
after we have something working in 8.5.

BTW, there is some useful info here:
http://docs.python.org/3.0/howto/cporting.html
for whenever we do get around to trying to make the code work.
It looks like we'll need not-trivial code changes.   But there's
no point until the language is a bit more stable.
        regards, tom lane