Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.3.1 issues

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >
> > > > > > indexes not used that were used in 6.2(fixed)
> > > > > > memory leak in backend when run on simple queries(fixed)
> > > > > > negative sign causing problems in various areas
> > > > > > configure assert checking is reversed
> > > > > > UNION crashes on ORDER BY or DISTINCT
> > > I would think we are safer by releasing a new diff. The char2-16
> > > changes are the only ones I know of that should not have been applied
> > > (by me!), so we can back them out. Just seems it is too easy to miss
> > > some part of the patch.
> >
> > Well, we have the other side of the problem to worry about too: that
> > with changes in the source tree, there may be unanticipated interactions
> > with other patches when we are really trying to fix only 5 specific
> > problems.
> >
> > I would like to do a test with specific patches on a clean v6.3.1
> > installation, and then we can compare the patches from my test with
> > patches from the CVS extraction. I'll isolate my "negative sign" fixes
> > (which I haven't yet committed to the source tree, but which I think
> > just need a reversion of scan.l/scan.c to the v6.3 release).
> >
> > Can you (re)send me the patches for these others? I still have the
> > "memory leak" patches, but can't remember who posted the "index" and
> > "UNION" patches (were they all yours Bruce?? Probably gone from my mail
> > anyway).
>
> Vadim did the index one, and I think I have a copy. The UNION was
> several patches by the time I was happy with it, so I would have to do a
> diff on just the files I know I changed.
>
> None of the current bugs are from changes made between 6.3 and 6.3.1
> except the negative patch, so I can't see us adding more problems.
>
> The regression test did not show these problems either, so I have little
> confidence that they will find new bugs we may be introducing. If we go
> with the current tree, we can have people who use cvsup keep testing the
> snapshot until we are happy with it.
>
> We will probably need Marc to make this decision. It can be argued
> either way.

I just read through all the posts on this subject (it was one busy
weekend), and considering that we *just* put out v6.3.1, I don't really
like the idea of doing another v6.3.2...

for v6.2.1, when Vadim has a problem that he fixed against that,
he put out a quick patch for that individual bug...

IMHO, v6.3.1 was a post-release release, mainly to work on and fix
bugs based on what those who were afraid of using the beta software
reported...anything else from that point should just be issued as
individual patches to address individual problems...

The patches listed above are great, and serve an important
function, but by fixing those, what other problem(s) have been introduced?
Has there been ample testing of the newest 'current' to release it as a
*release*, that alot of ppl will download and use?

Put them up as "official patches" against v6.3.1, but no
v6.3.2...not so close behind v6.3.1 :(

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org