Обсуждение: Obsolete warning on Python 2.4

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Obsolete warning on Python 2.4

От
Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
The docs say:
> Warning
>
> Due to Python bug #1483133, some debug versions of Python 2.4
> (configured and compiled with option --with-pydebug) are known to
> crash the PostgreSQL server when using an iterator to return a set
> result. Unpatched versions of Fedora 4 contain this bug. It does not
> happen in production versions of Python or on patched versions of
> Fedora 4.

That seems uninteresting to anyone in 2016. Any objections to removing it?

- Heikki


Re: Obsolete warning on Python 2.4

От
Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
On 9/19/16 1:21 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The docs say:
>> Warning
>>
>> Due to Python bug #1483133, some debug versions of Python 2.4
>> (configured and compiled with option --with-pydebug) are known to
>> crash the PostgreSQL server when using an iterator to return a set
>> result. Unpatched versions of Fedora 4 contain this bug. It does not
>> happen in production versions of Python or on patched versions of
>> Fedora 4.
>
> That seems uninteresting to anyone in 2016. Any objections to removing it?

We're still maintaining compatibility with Python 2.4 and the bug
apparently still exists, so I would perhaps keep it until we kill
support for Python 2.4.

--
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


Re: Obsolete warning on Python 2.4

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 9/19/16 1:21 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> That seems uninteresting to anyone in 2016. Any objections to removing it?

> We're still maintaining compatibility with Python 2.4 and the bug
> apparently still exists, so I would perhaps keep it until we kill
> support for Python 2.4.

Since the bug doesn't happen in production builds of Python, only in
debug builds, I'm not really worried that it's still a factor, even
if you believe that the Python folk still haven't patched it.

In short, I agree with Heikki that we could remove this.

            regards, tom lane