On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:46:07AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [...] we've repeatedly not bothered
>> to back-port regression test fixes for newer Pythons into that branch.
>> I could just omit Python 3 coverage for that branch in the critter's
>> configuration, but I wonder exactly why things are that way.
>> For clarity, to cover 9.1 I think we'd need to back-patch some subset
>> of these commits:
>> f16d52269 ff2faeec5 d0765d50f 6bff0e7d9 527ea6684 8182ffde5
>> 45d1f1e02 2cfb1c6f7
>> The precedent of not fixing 9.1 started with the last of these.
>> Or we could just blow it off on the grounds that 9.1 is not long
>> for this world anyhow.
>> Opinions anyone?
> I respect the 2012-era decision to have 9.1 not support newer Python, and I
> think the lack of user complaints validates it.  I wouldn't object to
> overturning the decision, either.  The biggest risk, albeit still a small
> risk, is that newer Python is incompatible with 9.1 in a way that the test
> suite does not catch.

The lack of user complaints regarding 9.1 using Python 3.5 and the
fact that 9.1 will be EOL in 8~9 months does not sound worth it to me.

A couple of days ago I bumped into this article, leading to the
thought that Python 4.0 may induce as much breakage as 3.5 did :(
Just something to keep in mind.

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

Reply via email to