Re: 9.2 release notes, beta time?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.2 release notes, beta time? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25017.1335382019@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.2 release notes, beta time? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Would it be reasonable to shoot for wrapping 9.2beta1 next week? > I suspect that's a bit aggressive. We have a couple of issues that I > think we should fix before beta1: > - the pg_stat_statements cleanups we were discussing on the other > thread, since that's going to involve changing column names/types > - the Hot Standby vs. index-only scans stuff, which needs a WAL format > change, and is my top priority as soon as I get unburied > - SP-GiST is unsafe for use by hot standby slaves, since I think > queries returning wrong answers = bad > - http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1333124720-sup-6193@alvh.no-ip.org I agree that fixing the first two before beta is a necessary thing. I'm not convinced the other two are beta blockers. We should not have a mindset of "there must be no known bugs in beta1"; we want to parallelize not serialize this process, so that testing has to be able to happen concurrently with fixing non-blocker bugs. I'd say that anything that isn't going to require an initdb to fix, and that most testers are unlikely to hit, ought not be a blocker. > I'm not sure we can commit to a timeline for beta until we know who is > taking care of each of those things. I already promised to deal with the first one, and you are indicating willingness to deal with the second, so I think we have the blockers covered. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: