| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial release notes created for 9.6 |
| Date: | 2016-05-06 01:06:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTKEs6FRVaRjNqUym14oG6GNwDpCePoffs-ZqemUQm42Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm, I had decided that wasn't worth listing, but now I can't think
>> why :-(. Will add it.
>
> Oh, now I see why it's not here: it was back-patched into 9.5, so it
> will not be a new feature in 9.6.0. It will be listed in the 9.5.3
> release notes, instead.
I was really hoping that the OpenSSL bugfix patch would receive the
same treatment (commit 7c7d4fddab82dc756d8caa67b1b31fcdde355aab).
Should I take its inclusion here in the 9.6 release notes as
portending a backpatch never happening?
There seems to be a lack of urgency about it, and given that it's
moderately complicated, that tends to mean it will keep getting put
off. I did notice that you have an sgml comment about it, but the
wording isn't optimistic.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-05-06 01:21:11 | Re: Initial release notes created for 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-06 00:54:58 | Re: Initial release notes created for 9.6 |