Re: oh dear ...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: oh dear ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8932.1068869796@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: oh dear ... ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: oh dear ...
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I guess the question is whether we would fix this in a minor release, >> and I think the answer it yes, so we can fix it now. > Ah, so we attempt to fix a bug that affects what appears to be a small % > of configurations with "quick testing" and with the greater possibility of > affecting a larger % of configurations ... instead of releasing what we > has been reported as being stable on the large % of configurations, and > fixing it for that small % of configuratiosn in a minor release? Huh? The pgstat bug is a platform dependency, sure, but this datetime bug is not platform-specific. I don't see that there's much commonality in the criteria for whether to patch them. My vote is to patch both --- I don't like shipping releases with known bugs in them, when such bugs would have been patched with no discussion just a week earlier. For sure we should triple-check the proposed patches, but once that's done I don't see a reason to hold off. The pgstat patch has already been checked to my satisfaction, but the datetime patch needs more eyeballs on it; anyone out there have time to look at it? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: