Re: rc1 or beta4? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: rc1 or beta4?
Date
Msg-id CAA-aLv7Xe-BdY662c_NLrw+tFDK-j_N8PRaPr-4vpSLXesNmSg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: rc1 or beta4?  (Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org>)
Responses Re: rc1 or beta4?
Re: rc1 or beta4?
List pgsql-hackers
On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org> wrote:
On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 16:47, Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org> wrote:
>
>> On 17/08/11 15:00, Dave Page wrote:
>>> The current plan (or, the last one I recall) is to push another 9.1
>>> release tomorrow, for Monday release. Are we going with beta4 or rc1?
>>
>> Sorry to butt in, but it would probably be good to include fixes for the
>> two segfault plpython bugs[1] before wrapping up the release.
>>
>
> It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet.  I take it that it should?

Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I
wanted was to draw some attention in case the people wrapping the
release missed that thread.

It was my understanding that the only things which can prevent a new beta or release candidate are listed on the wiki (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Open_Items).  There's only one item on the list now, and I think even that has probably been fixed.  If it's not on there, I guess it hasn't yet been considered to be something which can block a release.  Since it's not even listed as a non-blocker either, I don't think it's been reviewed in this context.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/Perl Returned Array
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: In pg_upgrade, avoid dumping orphaned temporary tables. This ma