From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries. |
Date: | 2012-09-14 17:17:27 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+vMK8Qa1-=F_ycVoQ2OG2pJFts8SsnkQE6C+0OB2io7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 14 September 2012 17:28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Devrim GUNDUZ" <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> writes:
>> Does this mean we need to wrap new tarballs soon, because of the data loss
>> bug?
>
> I'll defer to Robert on whether this bug is serious enough to merit a
> near-term release on its own. But historically, we've wanted to push
> out a .1 update two or three weeks after a .0 release, to mop up
> whatever new bugs are nasty enough for people to trip over right away.
> Maybe we should be thinking in terms of a set of releases around the
> end of September.
The bug itself is not major, but the extent and user impact is serious.
In my opinion we should issue a new release of 9.1 immediately.
9.2 might have different treatment but does suffer the same problem.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-14 22:25:38 | pgsql: Improve largeobject regression test to show size of object read |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-14 16:28:05 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-09-14 17:22:18 | Re: embedded list v2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-14 16:28:05 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries. |