Re: Time to drop plpython2?

On 11/14/21 21:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... btw, there's a fairly critical gating factor for any plan to drop
> python2 support: the buildfarm. I just counted, and there are exactly
> as many members running python 2.x as 3.x (49 apiece), not counting
> Windows machines that aren't running configure. We can't commit
> something that's going to make half the buildfarm go red.
>
> (It's likely that some fraction of them do already have python3 installed,
> in which case the search order change Peter recommended would be enough to
> fix it. But I'm sure not all do.)
>
> This ties into the business about converting the build system to meson,
> as that also requires python 3 --- with, IIUC, a higher minimum version
> than we might otherwise need. I'm disinclined to cause two separate
> flag days for buildfarm owners, so what I now think is we ought to put
> this idea on the shelf until we've finished that conversion or decided
> we're not gonna do it. We need to identify exactly what needs to be
> installed before we start pestering the owners.
>
>

crake has been using 2.7, but has 3.9.7 installed. I tried switching to
that but ran into an issue with upgrading things from 9.5 on. It would
have been all the way back to 9.2 but the plpython tests drop the
extension even though the transform tests in contrib don't, and neither
do the plperl tests drop plperlu. I'm rather inclined to say we should
stop doing that, or at least be consistent about it.

Having rebuilt all the branches from 9.5 and up the cross version
upgrade tests are now passing on crake.

My other machine with an old python instance is bowerbird. It has python
3.4 installed but not used, alongside 2.7 which is udsed. I will install
the latest and see if that can be made to work.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com