<p>On Nov 9, 2011 3:25 AM, "Tom Lane" <<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>> wrote:<br />
><br/> > Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:<br /> > > I was curious how 9.0 fared last year
forcomparison, here's that data:<br /> ><br /> > > Version Date Days Weeks<br /> > > 9.0.0
09/20/10<br/> > > 9.0.1 10/04/10 14 2.0<br /> > > 9.0.2 12/16/10 73 10.4<br /> > >
9.0.3 01/31/11 46 6.6<br /> > > 9.0.4 04/18/11 77 11.0<br /> > > 9.0.5 09/26/11 161
23.0<br /> ><br /> > > So the average for the first three point releases was around 6 weeks apart.<br />
><br/> > The 9.0.1 and 9.0.3 releases were both forced by security issues,<br /> > so I think that's an
unusuallylow average.<br /> ><br /> > Having said that, if enough people think that those backup issues are<br />
>critical-data-loss problems, I won't stand in the way of making a<br /> > release now. But like you, I'm not
exactlyconvinced we're done with<br /> > those issues.<br /> ><p>I definitely think they are important enough to
triggera release. But as you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem... <p>/Magnus <br />
