On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > Rename as 'release stopper'...
> >> notify fixes(Tom)
> >> [other items snipped]
> > These have obviously become show stoppers, since they are now half
> > implemented, and have to be completed before release. Do we have ETAs on
> > this stuff?
> My notify rewrite is not in the tree at all right now. I thought we had
> agreed (off-list) not to put that change into 6.4, but to postpone it
> to the next release.
> > As things stand right now, we are looking at November 1st
> > for a release date on v6.4...a month late, but not much worse then other
> > releases :)
> On the other hand, if release is going to be 11/1 not 10/1, my personal
> vote is to put the notify changes in. If there are any bugs, that ought
> to be time enough to shake them out.
> I can commit those changes tonight if I have the go-ahead. Or I can
> wait till post-6.4. Your call.
Go for it...that will at least get them off the list...
> flock is a release stopper as far as I'm concerned, because the backend
> *does not compile* on my platform without diking out that code. I agree
> that it is too late to try to rewrite the feature correctly for 6.4.
> What say we put in an autoconf test for whether flock exists, and make
> the new code conditional on that? People without flock would see the
> same old behavior, which is good enough for now. I will volunteer to
> make the necessary changes if that strategy is agreed on.
Make it so...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Massimo Dal Zotto||Date: 1998-10-05 19:59:33|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TCL_ARRAYS code in libpgtcl is pretty seriously broken|
|Previous:||From: Patrick Welche||Date: 1998-10-05 17:31:07|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] need help with csh|