MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAOYmi+nVsoMRFp4u0oQ66-oPT6+NNAfhLvk5htthY5zkUOnbfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1399933.1781817745@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1399933.1781817745@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 14:42:50 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOYmi+nqM3iH-huvAMkGhfG-JpZCUSB=wQPqAK-wxZjtBSmC_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2BnqM3iH-huvAMkGhfG-JpZCUSB%3DwQPqAK-wxZjtBSmC_w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:22=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, my impression of that thread was that we had agreed on pretty
> much everything except the value of N; if there was some later meeting
> that discussed it further, I wasn't there.

Cool.

> (hmm, I guess we didn't fill in $reasonable_timeframe, but that is
> probably going to be case-by-case anyway)

Sure. The first instance, if/when it happens, would probably be a trendsett=
er.

> It's too late to change anything for PG19, I think,

(right -- I didn't intend to propose a retroactive change, sorry for
any confusion)

> so it kind of doesn't
> matter today whether we set N to 2 or 3.

I think it still matters for impending decisions. For example, we're
about to engineer how to backport a sliding window of Python across
the sliding window of backbranch support. Shorter windows tie our
hands less.

But I agree that if that other thread is otherwise settled, we've
effectively declared that RHEL 9 is the minimum for PG20, and that
would make me very happy.

Thanks,
--Jacob