Hugh Ranalli <hugh@whtc.ca> writes:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 12:41, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> My opinion is that we should just convert the whole thing to Python 3
>> and be done. This script is only run rarely, on a developer's machine,
>> so it's not unreasonable to expect Python 3 to be available.
> Well, this is definitely an edge case, but I am actually running the
> patched script from a complex application installer running a
> custom-compiled version of Python 2.7. The installer runs under the same
> Python instance as the application. I certainly could invoke Python 3 to
> run this script, it's just a little more work, so I'm happy to go with the
> team's decision. Just let me know.
Seeing that supporting python 2 only adds a dozen lines of code,
I vote for retaining it for now. It'd be appropriate to drop that when
python 3 is the overwhelmingly more-installed version, but AFAICT that
isn't the case yet.
regards, tom lane
