Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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: 2015-05-29 20:29:36
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoadg9dHLpWodfwDaTZ=RbW+C_4CrgYyZ=Vx5QpMyP=N5A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's possible that we ought to give up on a pre-conference beta.
> Certainly a whole lot of time that I'd hoped would go into reviewing
> 9.5 feature commits has instead gone into back-branch bug chasing this
> week.

I'm personally kind of astonished that we're even thinking about beta
so soon. I mean, we at least need to go through the stuff listed
here, I think:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items

The bigger issue is: what's NOT on that list that should be? I think
we need to devote some cycles to figuring that out, and I sure haven't
had any this week.

In any case, I think the negative PR that we're going to get from not
getting this multixact stuff taken care of is going to far outweigh
any positive PR from getting 9.5beta1 out a little sooner, especially
if 9.5beta1 is bug-ridden because we gave it no time to settle.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-05-29 20:31:39 Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot()
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2015-05-29 20:15:29 Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot()