From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Hugh Ranalli <hugh@whtc.ca>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com,
 Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #15548: Unaccent does not remove combining diacritical
 characters
In-reply-to: 
 <CAAhbUMOG_S4DLQSDw3Jbqf8vipuvCAfxvH7T8+W2H0jFA-2K-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <10200.1544713542@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <5d77cc08-d582-4f83-a17f-f2c992d123a9@manitou-mail.org>
 <CAAhbUMOHkoN3Jeti4dp1jz3VY=XZPcCqpX=sW=mgmJbdMS--ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAhbUMNqJXTN+_vYdi5L4CLjoq9OCG29V597RKrCQ7xKsCAejA@mail.gmail.com>
 <16726.1544827803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAAhbUMN1n=ZVns-OeCbaVRYPS0oj7tTnmJrzw7Az-op4DHC+JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <23237.1544899488@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAAhbUMO+fTZTwigDJ=tB3qFvHMe-xAJO5QpsFPH6Vb2oDYAU6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAhbUMMmXnj0YSD+fr5hSqeC+D6PAG+0kXJwMMhK2DCdwQVoxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <29419.1544908811@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAEepm=3gSmNWkteBxCEL-W+j1dmbcNzDin_iv+f_Om6o+1fAiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAhbUMOX4QLj6c0O3GnjZYtR2dpAowss832Bq1n7oJyByeR7kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <31564.1545078667@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAAhbUMOe_VeJBxVqPe4Op2XKrT+xCcCvsUYRH4v6G71NDGG=fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEepm=0qb_nx-f8cACS1=1NdmCj-3D9zXFU+RJHsFbZEztcqjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAhbUMMzPERSe3KfKKQfR4COJCZSrss1G7KRyUraYJyvrVyOUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAhbUMNyZ+PhNr_mQ=G161K0-hvbq13Tz2is9M3WK+yX9cQOCw@mail.gmail.co!
 m> <522acda7-c7fe-4b2e-f134-02c73a091be9@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CAAhbUMOG_S4DLQSDw3Jbqf8vipuvCAfxvH7T8+W2H0jFA-2K-g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Hugh Ranalli <hugh@whtc.ca>
	message dated "Wed, 02 Jan 2019 12:58:03 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23323.1546457552.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 14:32:32 -0500
Message-ID: <23324.1546457552@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Hugh Ranalli <hugh@whtc.ca> writes:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 12:41, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> My opinion is that we should just convert the whole thing to Python 3
>> and be done.  This script is only run rarely, on a developer's machine,
>> so it's not unreasonable to expect Python 3 to be available.

> Well, this is definitely an edge case, but I am actually running the
> patched script from a complex application installer running a
> custom-compiled version of Python 2.7. The installer runs under the same
> Python instance as the application. I certainly could invoke Python 3 to
> run this script, it's just a little more work, so I'm happy to go with the
> team's decision. Just let me know.

Seeing that supporting python 2 only adds a dozen lines of code,
I vote for retaining it for now.  It'd be appropriate to drop that when
python 3 is the overwhelmingly more-installed version, but AFAICT that
isn't the case yet.

			regards, tom lane