| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2017-02-06 00:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20170206001459.fku4yy7iehzgqgsb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-02-05 12:51:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I agree with Pavan - a release with known important bug is not good idea.
>
> > This bug has been around for some time, so I would recommend taking
> > the time necessary to make the best fix possible, even if it means
> > waiting for the next round of minor releases.
>
> I think the way to think about this sort of thing is, if we had found
> this bug when a release wasn't imminent, would we consider it bad enough
> to justify an unscheduled release cycle? I have to think the answer for
> this one is "probably not".
+1. I don't think we serve our users by putting out a nontrivial bugfix
hastily. Nor do I think we serve them in this instance by delaying the
release to cover this fix; there's enough other fixes in the release
imo.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2017-02-06 00:19:09 | Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: Steps inside ExecEndGather) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-06 00:11:45 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |