BETA
in [PgSql]
|
From: "Marc G. Fournier" on 20 Apr 2010 13:53 On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Robert Haas wrote: > /me pushes luck > > And how about a set of back-branch releases while we're at it? We tend to try and avoid overlapping a "release" with a "beta" to avoid confusion ... but didn't we just do a fresh back branch release anyway? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy(a)hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy(a)hub.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Dave Page on 20 Apr 2010 14:31 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(a)commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 18:23 +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > /me pushes luck >> > >> > And how about a set of back-branch releases while we're at it? >> >> Yes, please don't push your luck :-p > > /me gives Dave an "Easy" button. /me offers to fix JD's parser to handle smileys. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 20 Apr 2010 16:08 > - Fix to_char('L') (localization) on Win32 when the operating system > character encoding does not match the database encoding > Seems like we're close to a fix on this, but even if not, I don't see > why this should be considered a blocker for beta. If this isn't an issue specific to 9.0, I agree. > - Thread safety and libxml2 > A proposed patch is available, but nobody seems to care enough to > bother testing it, so I can't get excited about postponing beta for > it. More importantly, this isn't a new issue. > Improve behavior of SUSET GUC variables added by loadable modules? > - Tom's looking at this, too. Is this an issue specific to 9.0? -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 20 Apr 2010 16:40 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Improve behavior of SUSET GUC variables added by loadable modules? >> - Tom's looking at this, too. > > Is this an issue specific to 9.0? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00865.php ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Dave Page on 20 Apr 2010 13:23 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > /me pushes luck > > And how about a set of back-branch releases while we're at it? Yes, please don't push your luck :-p -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: RPM script bug #5430 Next: [HACKERS] CTAS not honoring NOT NULL, DEFAULT modifiers |