| 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 |
| Subject: | Re: disposition of remaining patches |
| Date: | 2012-04-10 14:18:59 |
| Message-ID: | 29414.1334067539@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Looking over the remaining patches that still aren't closed in the
> January CommitFest:
> [ all but ECPG readahead and maybe libpq URIs have to go to 9.3 ]
Yeah, I agree. I'm not comfortable with squeezing in the array foreign
keys stuff at this point, and the others are clearly not ready.
I put the buffer I/O timing units issue on the open-items list
yesterday:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.2_Open_Items
and I encourage people to start using that to track must-fix-for-9.2
items.
We should at this point be focusing our efforts on getting a beta out.
Some but perhaps not all of the open items have to be resolved before
beta1, and we definitely need at least draft-quality release notes
so beta testers know what to test. Any other must-do tasks out there?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2012-04-10 14:21:19 | Re: disposition of remaining patches |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-04-10 14:15:37 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |