Re: oh dear ... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: oh dear ...
Date
Msg-id 8932.1068869796@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: oh dear ...  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: oh dear ...  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: oh dear ...
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: [CORE] 7.4RC2 regression failur and not running stats