| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Date: | 2015-05-30 00:07:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20150530000755.GW26667@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2015-05-29 18:02:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well, I think we ought to take at least a few weeks to try to do a bit
> > of code review and clean up what we can from the open items list.
>
> Why? A large portion of the input required to go from beta towards a
> release is from actual users. To see when things break, what confuses
> them and such.
>
> I don't see why that requires that there are no minor entries in the
> open items list - and that's what currently is on it. Neither does it
> seem to be a problem to do code review concurrently to user beta
> testing. We obviously can't start a beta if things crash left and
> right, but I don't think that's the situation right now?
Agreed.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-30 00:57:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-05-29 23:20:44 | nested loop semijoin estimates |