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
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() |