Hi, On 2022-01-27 17:53:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Thanks! Looks pretty good so far. Including on machines that were broken in > > take 1... > > Just about all of the buildfarm has reported in now, and it's all good. > So now we need to discuss whether we want to back-patch this. > > Pros: avoid configure warning now (not worth much); avoid outright > build failure on Python 3.12+ in future. > > Cons: breaks compatibility with Python 2.6 and 3.1.
How about adding a note about the change to this set of minor releases, and backpatch in the next set? 2.6 has been out of support since October 29, 2013. 2.7 was released 2010-07-03 and has been EOL 2020-01-01. > There are probably not many people using current Postgres builds > with 2.6 or 3.1, but we can't rule out that there are some; and > moving the compatibility goalposts in minor releases is generally > not nice. On the other hand, it's very foreseeable that somebody > will want to build our back branches against 3.12 once it's out. I don't see much point in worrying somebody still building plpython with 2.6, given its age. I feel a tad more compassion with a future self that wants to build a by-then EOL version of postgres, and plpython fails to build. We didn't commit to keeping plpython building, but it's in my default build script, so ... > We could also wait until closer to 2023 before doing anything, > but I fear we'd forget until complaints start to show up. > I'd rather get this done while it's front-of-mind. I vote for backpatching all the way either now, or after the next set of minor releases is tagged. Greetings, Andres Freund
