Re: 9.1.2 ?

On Nov 9, 2011 3:25 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I was curious how 9.0 fared last year for comparison, here's that data:
>
> > Version Date Days Weeks
> > 9.0.0 09/20/10
> > 9.0.1 10/04/10 14 2.0
> > 9.0.2 12/16/10 73 10.4
> > 9.0.3 01/31/11 46 6.6
> > 9.0.4 04/18/11 77 11.0
> > 9.0.5 09/26/11 161 23.0
>
> > So the average for the first three point releases was around 6 weeks
apart.
>
> The 9.0.1 and 9.0.3 releases were both forced by security issues,
> so I think that's an unusually low average.
>
> Having said that, if enough people think that those backup issues are
> critical-data-loss problems, I won't stand in the way of making a
> release now. But like you, I'm not exactly convinced we're done with
> those issues.
>

I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as
you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem...

/Magnus