From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: drop support for Python 2.3
In-reply-to: <7d5073f6-d9ea-ab09-4805-69a12f23e52f@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <7d5073f6-d9ea-ab09-4805-69a12f23e52f@2ndquadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:08:25 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9515.1486529343.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:49:03 -0500
Message-ID: <9516.1486529343@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I would like to propose that we drop support for Python 2.3.
> ...
> We do have buildfarm coverage on prairiedog.  However, that runs a >10
> year old operating system, so I think it is not representing real usage.

I have no particular objection to dropping 2.3 support, but should we
make some effort to fail gracefully (ie, with a relevant error message)
on older versions?  I would guess that the effect of your patch will be
to produce quite opaque failures.  We seem to be computing python_version
in configure, so it shouldn't be that hard to check.

> - It's unlikely that Python 2.3 is still used in practice.  Python 2.4
> is in RHEL 5, which is the typically the oldest mainstream OS we look at.

Hm, is there anything running 2.4 in the buildfarm?  If we're going to
claim support for 2.4, we'd be well advised to test it.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers