Remaining 9.5 open items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Remaining 9.5 open items
Date
Msg-id 12216.1448912639@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Remaining 9.5 open items  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Remaining 9.5 open items  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Remaining 9.5 open items  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Remaining 9.5 open items  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: Remaining 9.5 open items  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Remaining 9.5 open items  (Joel Jacobson <joel@trustly.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Well, it's December nearly, and we don't seem to be making much progress
towards pushing out 9.5.0.  I see the following items on
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items

* Open Row-Level Security Issues

Seems like what's left here is only documentation fixes, but they still
need to get done.

* DDL deparsing testing module should have detected that transforms were not supported, but it failed to notice that

Is this really a release blocker?  As a testing matter, it seems like any
fix would go into HEAD only.

* Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db?  If not, what remains to do?

* pg_rewind exiting with error code 1 when source and target are on the same timeline

Is this a new-in-9.5 bug, or a pre-existing problem?  If the latter,
I'm not sure it's a release blocker.

* psql extended wrapped format off by one error in line wrapping

There's a submitted patch, so I'll take a look at whether it's pushable.

* Finish multixact truncation rework

We're not seriously going to push something this large into 9.5 at this
point, are we?

* another strange behavior with track_commit_timestamp

Where are we on this?

* Relation files of unlogged relation for btree and spgist indexes not initialized after promotion

Again, is this a release blocker?  It's evidently a very old bug.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review