| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES |
| Date: | 2020-05-19 06:20:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20200519062029.GE11835@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it
>> means that it won't be included in it, right?
>
> Right.
Still, wouldn't it be better to wait until the version is tagged? My
understanding is that we had better not commit anything on a branch
planned for release between the moment the version is stamped and the
moment the tag is pushed so as we have a couple of days to address any
complaints from -packagers. Here, we are in a state where we have
between the stamp time and tag time an extra commit not related to a
packaging issue. So, if it happens that we have an issue from
-packagers to address, then we would have to include c301c2e in the
beta1. Looking at the patch committed, that's not much of an issue,
but I think that we had better avoid that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2020-05-19 06:31:35 | pg_dump dumps row level policies on extension tables |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-05-19 06:17:26 | Re: Add A Glossary |