On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> On 08/31/2012 06:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what we need to do to progress on this, especially re the
>>> back branches.
>>
>> The calendar might help us here. 9.2 is due to wrap next week, but it
>> will likely be a couple of months before we contemplate new back-branch
>> releases. So we could push a fix that we don't have 100% confidence in,
>> knowing that there is time to recover before it will ship in any of the
>> proven branches. Releasing it in 9.2.0 will afford an opportunity for
>> more testing than we can do by ourselves.
>>
>> That's not to take anything away from the fact that we ought to test as
>> many cases as we can now. But we do have some margin for error.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> OK, so I have tested it on my 32bit setup and it's working, so I'm going to
> commit this for HEAD/9.2 now, so we can get that wider testing.
Thanks Andrew. Owais, can you please test on both PG and PPAS?
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
