Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, my impression of that thread was that we had agreed on pretty
> much everything except the value of N; if there was some later meeting
> that discussed it further, I wasn't there.

Cool.

> (hmm, I guess we didn't fill in $reasonable_timeframe, but that is
> probably going to be case-by-case anyway)

Sure. The first instance, if/when it happens, would probably be a trendsetter.

> It's too late to change anything for PG19, I think,

(right -- I didn't intend to propose a retroactive change, sorry for
any confusion)

> 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.

But I agree that if that other thread is otherwise settled, we've
effectively declared that RHEL 9 is the minimum for PG20, and that
would make me very happy.

Thanks,
--Jacob