On 10/4/18 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> On 10/4/18 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I am suggesting to fix the issue after RC1 is released, but before GA.
>
>> That approach would mean we would require an RC2, which would further
>> delay the GA.
>
> Not sure about that. Alvaro seems to think there's a generic problem
> in event trigger processing, which if true, was likely there pre-v11.
> I don't think that patches that get back-patched further than 11
> need to restart the RC clock.
Well, unless we are targeting it for the release? AIUI the RCs are
should be equivalent to GA[1] (and yes I see the qualifier of "should be").
>
>> Ideally it would be great if this was fixed for RC1. However, given the
>> choice of pushing the release out further vs. saving the fix for .1
>> which would be relatively soon, I would vote for the latter.
>
> There are definitely good calendar reasons to hold to the schedule of
> RC1 next week and GA the week after. I'd only want to blow up that
> plan if we hit something that is both very bad and very hard to fix.
>
> However, if we have a fix that we believe in that's available post-RC1,
> I'm not sure I see why it's better to sit on it till after GA.
I'm not opposed; after seeing the "should be" qualifier I feel more
comfortable with the above proposal.
Jonathan
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1783/
