|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Time to drop plpython2?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2021-11-14 21:24:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... btw, there's a fairly critical gating factor for any plan to drop
> python2 support: the buildfarm. I just counted, and there are exactly
> as many members running python 2.x as 3.x (49 apiece), not counting
> Windows machines that aren't running configure. We can't commit
> something that's going to make half the buildfarm go red.
> (It's likely that some fraction of them do already have python3 installed,
> in which case the search order change Peter recommended would be enough to
> fix it. But I'm sure not all do.)
How about committing the order change alone? That seems like something
warranted completely in isolation? Afterwards we can see how many run what and
go from there?
> This ties into the business about converting the build system to meson,
> as that also requires python 3 --- with, IIUC, a higher minimum version
> than we might otherwise need. I'm disinclined to cause two separate
> flag days for buildfarm owners, so what I now think is we ought to put
> this idea on the shelf until we've finished that conversion or decided
> we're not gonna do it. We need to identify exactly what needs to be
> installed before we start pestering the owners.
Yea, that's true.
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2021-11-15 17:13:46||Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization?|
|Previous Message||Bharath Rupireddy||2021-11-15 16:57:36||Re: enhance pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() to log memory contexts of auxiliary processes|