Database statements via python but database left intact

[Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>> Now is a good time to go read about transactions, and committing, and the
>> difference between MyISAM and InnoDB.  Please don't ask more about it here.
>
> It's because of threads like this that I would really like Python to
> nudge people towards something stronger than MySQL. Would it kill
> Python to incorporate PostgreSQL bindings automatically?

It would require Postgres around people’s (or at least packagers’)
systems, and it often gets messy when we have such requirements.
Psycopg2, the most popular binding, is licensed under LGPL3 + Zope (or
such, there is a little mess here) which MAY pose a problem (IANAL
though).  Also, Postgres is much harder to configure than MySQL,
especially if you have no experience or an asshole OS.  Moreover, the
stdlib is where packages come to die.

So, instead of this, maybe we should work on getting psycopg2 to the
top result on Googling “python sql”, or even “python mysql” with an
anti-MySQL ad? (like vim was doing some time ago on Googling “emacs”)

We should also educate people on how PostgreSQL works with a nice,
human-friendly tutorial.  Especially in some non-standard things and
things that differ between PostgreSQL and MySQL — like how to make an
auto-incrementing ID field (use sequences), or how PostgreSQL arrays
work, among others.  The wiki (that nobody reads anyways) could also
use some marketing fixes.

-- 
Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick <http://kwpolska.tk>
PGP: 5EAAEA16
stop html mail | always bottom-post | only UTF-8 makes sense