Will MySQL ever be supported for Python 3.x?

[John Nagle]

The MySQLdb entry on SourceForge
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/mysql-python/)
web site still says the last supported version of Python is 2.6.
PyPi says the last supported version is Python 2.5. The
last download is from 2007.

I realize there are unsupported fourth-party versions from other
sources. (http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/) But those
are just blind builds; they haven't been debugged.

MySQL Connector (http://forge.mysql.com/projects/project.php?id=302)
is still pre-alpha.

John Nagle

 

[Irmen de Jong]

The MySQLdb entry on SourceForge
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/mysql-python/)
web site still says the last supported version of Python is 2.6.
PyPi says the last supported version is Python 2.5. The
last download is from 2007.

I realize there are unsupported fourth-party versions from other
sources. (http://www.lfd.uci.edu/~gohlke/pythonlibs/) But those
are just blind builds; they haven't been debugged.

MySQL Connector (http://forge.mysql.com/projects/project.php?id=302)
is still pre-alpha.

Try Oursql instead http://packages.python.org/oursql/
"oursql is a new set of MySQL bindings for python 2.4+, including python 3.x"

Irmen

 

[John Nagle]

Try Oursql instead http://packages.python.org/oursql/
"oursql is a new set of MySQL bindings for python 2.4+, including python 3.x"

Not even close to being compatible with existing code. Every SQL
statement has to be rewritten, with the parameters expressed
differently. It's a good approach, but very incompatible.

John Nagle

 

[Irmen de Jong]

Not even close to being compatible with existing code. Every SQL
statement has to be rewritten, with the parameters expressed
differently. It's a good approach, but very incompatible.

You didn't state that it had to be compatible with existing code.
Also, since you asked about Python 3.x, surely there are other incompatibilities you
need to take care of in the existing code? (unless it's Python 3.x clean already...)

Irmen

 

[John Nagle]

Those changes can be automated, given an adequate editor. "Oursql" is a
far better product than the primitive MySQLdb wrapper. It is worth the
trouble.

It's an interesting approach. As it matures, and a few big sites
use it. it will become worth looking at.

The emphasis on server-side buffering seems strange. Are there
benchmarks indicating this is worth doing? Does it keep transactions
locked longer? This bug report

https://answers.launchpad.net/oursql/+question/191256

indicates a performance problem. I'd expect server side buffering
to slow things down. Usually, you want to drain results out of
the server as fast as possible, then close out the command,
releasing server resources and locks.

John Nagle

 

[Jason]

Those changes can be automated, given an adequate editor. "Oursql" is a
far better product than the primitive MySQLdb wrapper. It is worth the
trouble.

Is OurSQL still active?
I had problems with it because it couldn't handle MySQL's zeroed dates, but the latest release seems to be patched now (applied a year after the bug was reported with a small patch to fix it).

-- Jason