On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am *not* feeling good about pushing out an RC1 release candidate
> I've been going through the WAL code, trying to understand it and
> document it. I've found a number of minor problems and several major
> ones ("major" meaning "can't really fix without an incompatible file
> format change, hence initdb"). I've reported the major problems to
> the mailing lists but gotten almost no feedback about what to do.
> In addition, I'm still looking for the bug that I originally went in to
> find: Scott Parish's report of being unable to restart after a normal
> shutdown of beta4. Examination of his WAL log shows some pretty serious
> lossage (see attached dump). My current theory is that the
> buffer-slinging logic in xlog.c dropped one or more whole buffers' worth
> of log records, but I haven't figured out exactly how.
> I want to veto putting out an RC1 until these issues are resolved...
Will second it ... Vadim is supposed to be back on the 6th, and Peter has
a couple of changes to configure he wants to do this weekend for the JDBC
stuff ... Thomas and I are in SF the end of next week for some meetings,
so if you can pop off a summary of what you've found to either of us, and
assuming that Vadim doesn't get caught up by then, we can bring them up
"in person" at that time ... ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-03-02 15:54:04|
|Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-03-02 15:48:38|
|Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status |