On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:29:06AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > Seems OK, but I think we need to work a little harder on evicting some
>> > things from the list of open items. I don't think all of the things
>> > listed in the blockers section really are, and I'm not sure what needs
>> > to be done about some of the things that are there.
>> I've got the libpq row processor thing. That and the CHECK NO INHERIT
>> syntax thing are definitely release-blockers, because we won't be able
>> to change such decisions post-release (well, we could, but the pain to
>> benefit ratio is bad). I guess the SPGiST vs HS issue is a blocker too.
>> A lot of the rest look like pre-existing bugs to me.
> The only preexisting issues listed under "Blockers for 9.2" are "GiST indexes
> vs fuzzy comparisons used by geometric types" and "Should we fix tuple limit
> handling, or redefine 9.x behavior as correct?". Also, I'm not sure what
> exactly the "keepalives" item indicates. Whether every regression deserves to
> block the release is, of course, a separate question.
> I think "WAL files which were restored from the archive are archived again" is
> the thorniest regression, and we don't yet have a patch.
Yep, that's really a problem. Will implement the patch.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2012-07-24 18:05:53|
|Subject: Re: canceling autovacuum task woes|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-07-24 17:48:27|
|Subject: canceling autovacuum task woes|