Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/21/17 10:18, Tom Lane wrote: > Based on some not-fun I had along the way to that, I think it would be > a good idea to do the Python version check a bit earlier than you have > here. The shlib search in PGAC_CHECK_PYTHON_EMBED_SETUP is pretty fragile > and version-dependent, which means that

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-21 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 2/19/17 23:33, Devrim Gündüz wrote: >> Thanks! Looks like buildfarm is green again. > Thank. I have committed the patch to drop Python 2.3 support. I spent some time last night building a (rather makeshift) python 2.4.1

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/19/17 23:33, Devrim Gündüz wrote: > Thanks! Looks like buildfarm is green again. Thank. I have committed the patch to drop Python 2.3 support. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Devrim Gündüz
Hi, On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 16:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, that test is checking which week-of-the-year a Sunday midnight is > considered to fall into.  There could be an edge-case bug in Tcl itself, > or a problem with the time zone data, or maybe if you're setting LC_TIME > to tr_TR, that

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Tom Lane
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes: > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 13:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Or conceivably it's timezone dependent? > FWIW, the timezone of the server is GMT+3, if that is what you are asking. Well, that test is checking which week-of-the-year a Sunday

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Devrim Gündüz
Hi Tom, On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 13:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Hmph.  I can't see any relevant-looking source changes between 8.4.13 > and 8.4.15, which I have laying about here and which works fine. > I wonder if Red Hat is carrying some distro-specific patch that > breaks this case?  Just

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Tom Lane
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes: > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 10:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Relevant question: what version of tcl is installed on those? > 8.4.13 is installed. Hmph. I can't see any relevant-looking source changes between 8.4.13 and 8.4.15, which I

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Devrim Gündüz
Hi Tom, On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 10:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Relevant question: what version of tcl is installed on those? 8.4.13 is installed. Regards, -- Devrim Gündüz EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter:

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes: >> arapaima(x86) and aholehole(x86_64) are the new animals. They are running the >> buildfarm script now. > ... and failing. I wonder what is wrong with tcl_date_week()? > Will look for the explanation in a bit. Relevant

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Tom Lane
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes: > arapaima(x86) and aholehole(x86_64) are the new animals. They are running the > buildfarm script now. ... and failing. I wonder what is wrong with tcl_date_week()? Will look for the explanation in a bit.

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-19 Thread Devrim Gündüz
Hi, On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 08:21 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I will wait for that before proceeding. Sorry for the delay, I also had to build a newer flex RPM before proceeding. arapaima(x86) and aholehole(x86_64) are the new animals. They are running the buildfarm script now. Regards, --

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-16 Thread Devrim Gündüz
Hi Peter, On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 08:21 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I have CentOS 5 instances running on buildfarm. I'll register them via > > buildfarm.pg.org soon. > > I will wait for that before proceeding. Sorry for the delay. Machines are ready, I think I can prepare the buildfarm

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/17 10:35, Devrim Gündüz wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 09:16 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> It appears that we don't have anything running 2.4. A RHEL/CentOS 5 >> system with standard components would be a good addition to the build farm. > > I have CentOS 5 instances running on

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-12 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/7/17 10:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut 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

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/07/2017 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut 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

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-08 Thread Devrim Gündüz
Hi, On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 09:16 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > It appears that we don't have anything running 2.4.  A RHEL/CentOS 5 > system with standard components would be a good addition to the build farm. I have CentOS 5 instances running on buildfarm. I'll register them via

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/7/17 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. It appears that we don't have anything running 2.4. A RHEL/CentOS 5 system with standard components would be a good addition to

Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-07 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut 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

[HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3

2017-02-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I would like to propose that we drop support for Python 2.3.  Reasons:

- Python 3.6 was released in December.  The list of versions we need to
manage is growing.

- Older Python versions are increasingly hard to build locally for testing.

- It's unlikely that Python 2.3 is still used in