Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries.
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+U5nM+vMK8Qa1-=F_ycVoQ2OG2pJFts8SsnkQE6C+0OB2io7w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries.
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 September 2012 17:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Devrim GUNDUZ" <devrim@gunduz.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: