Re: 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6
Date: 2014-03-13 01:15:23
Message-ID: 26918.1394673323@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Discuss.

This thread badly needs a more informative Subject line.

But, yeah: do people think the referenced commit fixes a bug bad enough
to deserve a quick update release? If so, why? Multiple reports of
problems in the field would be a good reason, but I've not seen such.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2014-03-13 01:22:54 Bug: Fix Wal replay of locking an updated tuple (WAS: Re: 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-03-13 00:54:36 Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"