Re: Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?
Date: 2003-01-26 05:27:44
Message-ID: 200301260527.h0Q5RiU22818@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Agreed. How do we get the patches in there, or are they there already?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > So, do we have non-security fixes to warrant a 7.2.X?
>
> There's the order-of-operations-in-checkpoint problem, and there's
> one variant of the "no one parent tuple was found" problem that
> should have been patched in 7.2.3, but was overlooked.
>
> Also, the bogus-datetime-table-ordering bugs appear to exist in
> 7.2 (cf. recent complaint about timezone ART not being recognized).
> That ought to be back-patched, if we're going to make a 7.2.4,
> though one could certainly say that that doesn't merit a release
> by itself.
>
> I think there's enough to warrant a 7.2.4 ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-01-26 05:27:51 Re: [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2003-01-26 05:17:30 Re: domain check constraint syntax problem for 7.4