Re: Minimum supported version of Python?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Minimum supported version of Python?
Date: 2014-03-18 02:55:18
Message-ID: 16683.1395111318@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/17/2014 07:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> As I said, according to my testing, 2.3 is supported. If your
>> experience is different, then please submit a reproducible bug report.

It doesn't pass the regression tests. Do you need more of a bug report
than that?

>> There are many other features that the build farm doesn't test and that
>> I don't have a lot of faith in, but I'm not proposing to remove those.

I'm not proposing to remove any code either. What I am proposing is that
we should not describe Python 2.3 as "supported" if our regression tests
don't support it. The most that's going to get for us is questions and
bug reports.

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Python 2.3 is dead. We shouldn't actively support it nor suggest that we
> could or should via the docs.

The lack of field complaints about the regression test issue lends
considerable weight to the theory that nobody cares about 2.3 anymore.
Given that, I'm fully on board with the idea that we should not invest
effort in making the regression tests pass with it. But ... if we aren't
willing to put in that effort, then we're not supporting it. QED.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-03-18 03:09:29 Re: Portability issues in shm_mq
Previous Message David Johnston 2014-03-18 02:52:26 Re: Minimum supported version of Python?