GH-47370: [Python] Require Cython 3.1

[thisisnic]

Rationale for this change

Upgrading Cython to version 3.1

What changes are included in this PR?

Replace all mentions of earlier versions with 3.1

Are these changes tested?

Nah but I'll run CI

Are there any user-facing changes?

Only if they're using Cython < 3.1

• GitHub Issue: [Python] Require Cython 3.1 #47370

[thisisnic]

@github-actions crossbow submit -g python

[github-actions]

Revision: bdded002dc1c13c2939f46b12f59cd5f30ce86cd

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-0f0c2ad351

Task	Status
example-python-minimal-build-fedora-conda
example-python-minimal-build-ubuntu-venv
test-conda-python-3.10
test-conda-python-3.10-hdfs-2.9.2
test-conda-python-3.10-hdfs-3.2.1
test-conda-python-3.10-pandas-latest-numpy-latest
test-conda-python-3.11
test-conda-python-3.11-dask-latest
test-conda-python-3.11-dask-upstream_devel
test-conda-python-3.11-hypothesis
test-conda-python-3.11-pandas-latest-numpy-1.26
test-conda-python-3.11-pandas-latest-numpy-latest
test-conda-python-3.11-pandas-nightly-numpy-nightly
test-conda-python-3.11-pandas-upstream_devel-numpy-nightly
test-conda-python-3.11-spark-master
test-conda-python-3.12
test-conda-python-3.12-cpython-debug
test-conda-python-3.13
test-conda-python-3.9
test-conda-python-3.9-pandas-1.1.3-numpy-1.19.5
test-conda-python-emscripten
test-cuda-python-ubuntu-22.04-cuda-11.7.1
test-debian-12-python-3-amd64
test-debian-12-python-3-i386
test-fedora-42-python-3
test-ubuntu-22.04-python-3
test-ubuntu-22.04-python-313-freethreading
test-ubuntu-24.04-python-3

[raulcd]

The macOS failures have been fixed on main, could you rebase to validate CI?

[AlenkaF]

The updates look good to me.

The two MinGW failures are not connected and are tracked here:
#47440

Will wait for one last check from @raulcd before we merge.

[raulcd]

This LGTM, I've compared with the changes we did when we updated to minimum required Cython 3 and it seems like everything is covered:

• #45237

[raulcd]

I plan to merge this as we all seem to be on agreement, I'll merge in the next couple of days unless there's any concern.
@WillAyd @pitrou FYI

[pitrou]

As a followup task, perhaps look for places in the codebase where we can simplify things?

[WillAyd]

Thanks!

[thisisnic]

As a followup task, perhaps look for places in the codebase where we can simplify things?

Sounds good, is there any particular kind of thing we want to simplify?

[pitrou]

You'll find at least some ideas in the original issue ;)

[AlenkaF]

Thank you @thisisnic!
I have created a follow-up issue (#47467) and will go ahead and merge the changes here.

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 940592b.

There weren't enough matching historic benchmark results to make a call on whether there were regressions.

The full Conbench report has more details.