On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or we could just blow it off on the grounds that 9.1 is not long
> for this world anyhow.
+1 for blowing it off. I can't see the point in putting effort into
this. Nobody should be spinning up new PostgreSQL 9.1 deployments at
this point, and
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Noah Misch 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
>
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 w
In view of our rather embarrassing failure to cover the back branches
with Python 3.5-related regression test adjustments, I think there is
a clear need for a buildfarm critter that's testing with Python 3.5,
and I've been working on setting one up. It's passing at the moment
for 9.2 and up, but n
