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 that it starts passing. If you >> won't do that, I'm going to change the documentation. > > As I said, according to my testing, 2.3 is supported. If your > experience is different, then please submit a reproducible bug report. > >> 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 that > I don't have a lot of faith in, but I'm not proposing to remove those. > I don't control what the build farm tests, I only control my own work.
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. There is certainly an argument for Python 2.4 (due to CentOS/RHEL) but other than that... really? JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc Political Correctness is for cowards. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
