Peter Eisentraut 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 recently add
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 nee
I wrote:
> Andres Freund 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 this...
> I think
Andres Freund 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 long-since-fixed python
>> bug,
On 2014-03-25 15:08:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund 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 ca
Andres Freund 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 that I'd try is i
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=prairiedog&dt=2014-03-19%2017%3A
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=prairiedog&dt=2014-03-19%2017%3A00%3A48
Some bisection tests say that it started failing after commit
17dee323e7ff67863582f279e415
I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut 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, etc.
> Af
Peter Eisentraut 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 platform, wha
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 coul
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 depe
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,
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, ho
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
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
>>>
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 fe
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 f
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
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'
Peter Eisentraut 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,
>> Personal
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:
http://www.postgresq
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 l
Brendan Jurd writes:
> On 16 March 2014 11:55, 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, all of the
>> form
>> ...
On 16 March 2014 11:55, 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, all of the
> form
>
...
> Personally I have no desire
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: ImportError:
26 matches
Mail list logo
