[ I was hoping for more opinions, but I guess nobody cares but us ]
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-01-27 17:53:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So now we need to discuss whether we want to back-patch this.
>> Pros: avoid configure warning now (not worth much); avoid outright
>> build failure on Python 3.12+ in future.
>> Cons: breaks compatibility with Python 2.6 and 3.1.
> How about adding a note about the change to this set of minor releases, and
> backpatch in the next set?
Meh. Nobody looks at minor release notes to find out what will happen
in some other minor release. Moreover, the sort of people who might
be adversely affected are probably not absorbing every minor release
right away, so they'd very likely not see the advance warning anyway.
> I don't see much point in worrying somebody still building plpython with 2.6,
> given its age. I feel a tad more compassion with a future self that wants to
> build a by-then EOL version of postgres, and plpython fails to build. We
> didn't commit to keeping plpython building, but it's in my default build
> script, so ...
Hmm, well, we're certainly not making this change in pre-v10 releases,
so I'm not sure that changing v10 will make things much easier for your
future self. But it's unusual for us to make back-patching decisions
on the sort of basis I proposed here, so I'm okay with just going back
to v10 instead.
> I vote for backpatching all the way either now, or after the next set of minor
> releases is tagged.
If nobody else has weighed in by tomorrow, I'll backpatch to v10.
regards, tom lane
