From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Renan Alves Fonseca <renanfonseca(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What's our minimum supported Python version? |
Date: | 2025-04-22 19:41:39 |
Message-ID: | 1122479.1745350899@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:09 PM Renan Alves Fonseca
> <renanfonseca(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The oldest non EOL version is 3.9 right now. My suggestion is to follow
>> the official supported releases.
> I think this policy is too aggressive. Many operating systems we
> support are going to ship Python versions past their EOL date (and
> keep them supported for a long while with security patches).
Yeah, that. The distros that are still shipping older Pythons
are LTS distros where part of the deal is that the vendor
is supposed to back-patch security fixes, even if the upstream
has moved on. Maybe a particular vendor is falling down on that
job, but it's not for us to rate their performance. So I don't
buy that "but security!" is a good argument here.
(Full disclosure: I worked for Red Hat for more than a decade,
and still preferentially use their distros. So I've pretty well
bought into that model.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2025-04-22 19:43:56 | Re: pgsql: Update guidance for running vacuumdb after pg_upgrade. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-04-22 19:36:18 | Re: [PATCH] Support older Pythons in oauth_server.py |