Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-06-18T22:26:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> so it kind of doesn't >> matter today whether we set N to 2 or 3. > I think it still matters for impending decisions. For example, we're > about to engineer how to backport a sliding window of Python across > the sliding window of backbranch support. Shorter windows tie our > hands less. I dunno. One of the points of the allegedly-agreed-to policy framework was >>> 2) We don't remove support for OS versions in minor releases A strict reading of that is that a released branch can't increase its minimum required Python version. Now maybe we can finesse that, like "you can build PL/Python and associated contrib modules with Python >= X, but if you want to run these optional tests, they require Python >= Y". Not sure how comfortable I am with that. I definitely don't want to get into a situation where we require buildfarm owners to have Python >= Y installed, because then we will not have any testing that proves we didn't break the other part. (So we'd need a runtime check to skip these tests on too-old Python.) In any case, if we do make such a decision, most likely we'd use the same value of Y for all the active back branches. So I think the value of N in the support policy really only matters for future version-cutoff decisions. regards, tom lane