| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions |
| Date: | 2016-03-04 16:23:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZVJYYi+AyPmBup-oyB=k99Z4r-dDxNP=_e5nHPDLOxUQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I would like to have a patch for this finalized today, so that we can
>> apply to master before or during the weekend; with it in the tree for
>> about a week we can be more confident and backpatch close to next
>> weekend, so that we see it in the next set of minor releases. Does that
>> sound good?
>
> I see no reason to wait before backpatching. If you're concerned about
> having testing, the more branches it is in, the more buildfarm cycles
> you will get on it. And we're not going to cut any releases in between,
> so what's the benefit of not having it there?
Agreed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-04 16:25:10 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-03-04 16:22:45 | Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8) |