On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:46:07AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> [...] we've repeatedly not bothered >> to back-port regression test fixes for newer Pythons into that branch. >> I could just omit Python 3 coverage for that branch in the critter's >> configuration, but I wonder exactly why things are that way. >> >> For clarity, to cover 9.1 I think we'd need to back-patch some subset >> of these commits: >> >> f16d52269 ff2faeec5 d0765d50f 6bff0e7d9 527ea6684 8182ffde5 >> 45d1f1e02 2cfb1c6f7 >> >> The precedent of not fixing 9.1 started with the last of these. > >> Or we could just blow it off on the grounds that 9.1 is not long >> for this world anyhow. >> >> Opinions anyone? > > I respect the 2012-era decision to have 9.1 not support newer Python, and I > think the lack of user complaints validates it. I wouldn't object to > overturning the decision, either. The biggest risk, albeit still a small > risk, is that newer Python is incompatible with 9.1 in a way that the test > suite does not catch.
The lack of user complaints regarding 9.1 using Python 3.5 and the fact that 9.1 will be EOL in 8~9 months does not sound worth it to me. A couple of days ago I bumped into this article, leading to the thought that Python 4.0 may induce as much breakage as 3.5 did :( http://astrofrog.github.io/blog/2016/01/12/stop-writing-python-4-incompatible-code/ Just something to keep in mind. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
