Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: You backpatched this change, but that can't be right, because the feature that requires the cdecimal module was added in 9.4 (7919398bac8bacd75ec5d763ce8b15ffaaa3e071). Ah. I saw that the failing tests were quite old, but did not realize that we'd only

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: If there's a refcounting bug inside python somewhere (which is easy to trigger in python's C interface), it could be excerbated by that change, since it frees/compiles functions more frequently. But I'd very much like more evidence of

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 18:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: After further experimentation, I've found that 2.3 does pass the regression tests if one installs the separately-available cdecimal module. So my complaint reduces to the fact that our Requirements documentation doesn't mention the need for

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-25 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, Robert pointed this out to me, thanks. On 2014-03-24 00:54:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Well ... [2.3] passes in C locale, anyway. 9.1 appears to have a problem if using UTF8 encoding: http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-03-19%2017%3A00%3A48

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-03-24 00:54:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Some bisection tests say that it started failing after commit 17dee323e7ff67863582f279e415a8228e0b99cd. No idea why, atm. I can't really see why that'd would cause any such failure either. One thing

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-25 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-03-25 15:08:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-03-24 00:54:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Some bisection tests say that it started failing after commit 17dee323e7ff67863582f279e415a8228e0b99cd. No idea why, atm. I can't really see why

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-25 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-03-25 15:08:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: It's 100% reproducible on prairiedog, which is a Mac Cube running Tiger, and using the version of python that came with Tiger (2.3.5 :-(). It seems not impossible that we're looking at a

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-23 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Well ... [2.3] passes in C locale, anyway. 9.1 appears to have a problem if using UTF8 encoding: http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-03-19%2017%3A00%3A48 Some bisection tests say that it started failing after commit

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: It does pass the tests for me and others. If you are seeing something different, then we need to see some details, like what platform, what version, what Python version, how installed, what PostgreSQL version, how installed, actual diffs,

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/17/2014 10:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: As for 2.4 vs 2.5, I don't have a lot of faith that we're really supporting anything that's not represented in the buildfarm... There are many other features that the build farm doesn't test and

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 3/17/14, 10:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: It doesn't pass the regression tests. Do you need more of a bug report than that? It does pass the tests for me and others. If you are seeing something different, then we need to see some details, like what platform, what version, what Python version, how

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 3/17/14, 10:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: We shouldn't be supporting anything the community doesn't support. Python 2.3 is dead. We shouldn't actively support it nor suggest that we could or should via the docs. The information that is available to me about this issue is lacking details,

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 3/18/14, 11:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Actually, if you run a buildfarm animal you have considerable control over what it tests. I appreciate that. My problem here isn't time or ideas or coding, but lack of hardware resources. If I had hardware, I could set up tests for every build

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-18 Thread David Johnston
Peter Eisentraut-2 wrote On 3/18/14, 11:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Actually, if you run a buildfarm animal you have considerable control over what it tests. I appreciate that. My problem here isn't time or ideas or coding, but lack of hardware resources. If I had hardware, I could set

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On 3/17/14, 10:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: It doesn't pass the regression tests. Do you need more of a bug report than that? It does pass the tests for me and others. If you are seeing something different, then we need to see some details, like what

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Well, if you want to consider python 2.3 as supported, I have a buildfarm machine I am about to put online that has 2.3 on it. If I spin it up with python enabled, I expect you to see to it that it starts passing. If you won't do that, I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-17 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 03/17/2014 07:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Well, if you want to consider python 2.3 as supported, I have a buildfarm machine I am about to put online that has 2.3 on it. If I spin it up with python enabled, I expect you to see to it

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-17 Thread David Johnston
Peter Eisentraut-2 wrote On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Our documentation claims that the minimum Python version for plpython is 2.3. However, an attempt to build with that on an old Mac yielded a bunch of failures in the plpython_types regression test, It has

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-17 Thread Tom Lane
On 03/17/2014 07:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: As I said, according to my testing, 2.3 is supported. If your experience is different, then please submit a reproducible bug report. It doesn't pass the regression tests. Do you need more of a bug report than that? There are many other

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-17 Thread David Johnston
Joshua D. Drake wrote On 03/17/2014 07:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Well, if you want to consider python 2.3 as supported, I have a buildfarm machine I am about to put online that has 2.3 on it. If I spin it up with python enabled, I

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes: On 16 March 2014 11:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Our documentation claims that the minimum Python version for plpython is 2.3. However, an attempt to build with that on an old Mac yielded a bunch of failures in the plpython_types regression

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Our documentation claims that the minimum Python version for plpython is 2.3. However, an attempt to build with that on an old Mac yielded a bunch of failures in the plpython_types regression test, It has frequently been the case that the

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 15:56 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote: Versions earlier than 2.5 are probably only of interest to historians at this point. and users of RHEL 5 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Our documentation claims that the minimum Python version for plpython is 2.3. However, an attempt to build with that on an old Mac yielded a bunch of failures in the plpython_types regression test,

[HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-15 Thread Tom Lane
Our documentation claims that the minimum Python version for plpython is 2.3. However, an attempt to build with that on an old Mac yielded a bunch of failures in the plpython_types regression test, all of the form ! ERROR: could not import a module for Decimal constructor ! DETAIL:

Re: [HACKERS] Minimum supported version of Python?

2014-03-15 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 16 March 2014 11:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Our documentation claims that the minimum Python version for plpython is 2.3. However, an attempt to build with that on an old Mac yielded a bunch of failures in the plpython_types regression test, all of the form ... Personally I