Re: oh dear ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: oh dear ...
Date: 2003-11-15 04:16:36
Message-ID: 8932.1068869796@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I guess the question is whether we would fix this in a minor release,
>> and I think the answer it yes, so we can fix it now.

> Ah, so we attempt to fix a bug that affects what appears to be a small %
> of configurations with "quick testing" and with the greater possibility of
> affecting a larger % of configurations ... instead of releasing what we
> has been reported as being stable on the large % of configurations, and
> fixing it for that small % of configuratiosn in a minor release?

Huh? The pgstat bug is a platform dependency, sure, but this datetime
bug is not platform-specific. I don't see that there's much commonality
in the criteria for whether to patch them.

My vote is to patch both --- I don't like shipping releases with known
bugs in them, when such bugs would have been patched with no discussion
just a week earlier. For sure we should triple-check the proposed
patches, but once that's done I don't see a reason to hold off.

The pgstat patch has already been checked to my satisfaction, but the
datetime patch needs more eyeballs on it; anyone out there have time to
look at it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-11-15 04:21:52 Re: oh dear ...
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-11-15 03:42:46 Re: oh dear ...