| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bgwriter changes |
| Date: | 2004-12-14 15:23:49 |
| Message-ID: | 41BF0585.5080907@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>However, due consideration should also be given to
>
>(4) Do nothing until 8.1.
>
>At this point in the release cycle I'm not sure we should be making
>any significant changes for anything less than a crashing bug.
>
>
>
If that's not the policy, then I don't understand the dev cycle state
labels used.
In the commercial world, my approach would be that if this was
determined to be necessary (about which I am moderately agnostic) then
we would abort the current RC stage, effectively postponing the release.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brad Nicholson | 2004-12-14 15:51:37 | V8.0rc1 On AIX. |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-12-14 14:46:05 | Re: possible wierd boolean bug? |