Prev: [HACKERS] do we need to postpone beta4?
Next: [HACKERS] page corruption on 8.3+ that makes it to standby
From: Robert Haas on 28 Jul 2010 18:58
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> Well, that's pretty much saying we won't release before September.
>
> Yup, that's what I think. �In fact I think September might be
> optimistic. �This is what happens when you fork early and allow
> developers to start focusing on new development instead of testing
> the release branch.

Actually, rewind. I see that you moved the user-mappings issue I was
concerned about to "resolved after beta3"; I missed the fact that
you'd committed a fix there. You also fixed the EPQ issue, and the
heap_update_redo problem evaporated. So now we have the following
issues remaining:

* page corruption after moving tablespace
* ExplainOnePlan handles snapshots differently than ProcessQuery
* name and comment of XLogSetAsyncCommitLSN() should be changed
* Documentation fails to build as PDF

....and I wouldn't necessarily regard any of those as forcing another
beta; the first two are ancient, the third is cosmetic, and the last
one is a build system issue rather than a code change.

Obviously, it's too early to decide anything: we may yet discover more
issues that need to be addressed. But I think we're in much better
shape than it seemed 24 hours ago.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: 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: Tom Lane on 28 Jul 2010 19:36
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes:
> So now we have the following issues remaining:

> * page corruption after moving tablespace
> * ExplainOnePlan handles snapshots differently than ProcessQuery
> * name and comment of XLogSetAsyncCommitLSN() should be changed
> * Documentation fails to build as PDF

> ...and I wouldn't necessarily regard any of those as forcing another
> beta; the first two are ancient, the third is cosmetic, and the last
> one is a build system issue rather than a code change.

> Obviously, it's too early to decide anything: we may yet discover more
> issues that need to be addressed. But I think we're in much better
> shape than it seemed 24 hours ago.

Yeah. I'm off poking at the "incorrect FTS result" problem, but that
is a pre-existing bug as well; it goes back at least to 8.4 and probably
further.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: [HACKERS] do we need to postpone beta4?
Next: [HACKERS] page corruption on 8.3+ that makes it to standby