On 02/07/2017 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> 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 objection to dropping 2.3 support, but should we
> make some effort to fail gracefully (ie, with a relevant error message)
> on older versions? I would guess that the effect of your patch will be
> to produce quite opaque failures. We seem to be computing python_version
> in configure, so it shouldn't be that hard to check.
>
>> - It's unlikely that Python 2.3 is still used in practice. Python 2.4
>> is in RHEL 5, which is the typically the oldest mainstream OS we look at.
> 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.
with top as (select distinct on (sysname) sysname, snapshot from
build_status_recent_500 where branch = 'HEAD' order by sysname,
snapshot desc ) select * from top where exists (select 1 from
build_status_log l where l.sysname = top.sysname and l.snapshot =
top.snapshot and l.branch = 'HEAD' and l.log_stage = 'config.log'
and l.log_text ~ 'python2\.4');
This returns no rows.
Maybe we need to set up a Centos5 or RHEL 5 animal.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
