Thread: Release schedule for 9.3.3?
Are there any tentative plans for the 9.3.3 release date? 9.3.2 was released in December and it’s getting close to the twomonth mark for another micro release, or at least one seems like one should be right around the corner. It’s a little early, but I haven’t seen any movement or discussion so I thought I’d prod and ask. Thanks in advance. -sc -- Sean Chittenden sean@chittenden.org
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> wrote: > Are there any tentative plans for the 9.3.3 release date? 9.3.2 was released in December and it's getting close to thetwo month mark for another micro release, or at least one seems like one should be right around the corner. Bug fix releases are released when we find bugs, not on a schedule. That said, there were some bugs fixed in the last few weeks including one fairly serious one so I would expect one in not too long. -- greg
Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> wrote:
>> Are there any tentative plans for the 9.3.3 release date? 9.3.2 was released in December and it's getting close to
thetwo month mark for another micro release, or at least one seems like one should be right around the corner.
> Bug fix releases are released when we find bugs, not on a schedule.
> That said, there were some bugs fixed in the last few weeks including
> one fairly serious one so I would expect one in not too long.
We're trying to get something organized right now, actually. Barring
objections from the packagers list, it'll be week after next.
regards, tom lane
All, Do the 9.3.3 replication fixes mean that users should reclone their replicas, like 9.3.2 did? Or not? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Hi, On 2014-02-14 13:08:34 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: > Do the 9.3.3 replication fixes mean that users should reclone their > replicas, like 9.3.2 did? Or not? Which replication replication fixes are you referring to? http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ebde6c40148c9f811f7c6d35f67e7ea3ce2d9b34 ? If so, no, that doesn't require a reclone. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 02/14/2014 01:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-02-14 13:08:34 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Do the 9.3.3 replication fixes mean that users should reclone their >> replicas, like 9.3.2 did? Or not? > > Which replication replication fixes are you referring to? > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ebde6c40148c9f811f7c6d35f67e7ea3ce2d9b34 > ? > If so, no, that doesn't require a reclone. Hmmm. I thought there were also 9.3-only replication fixes in this release? No? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 2014-02-14 13:33:46 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/14/2014 01:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2014-02-14 13:08:34 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Do the 9.3.3 replication fixes mean that users should reclone their > >> replicas, like 9.3.2 did? Or not? > > > > Which replication replication fixes are you referring to? > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ebde6c40148c9f811f7c6d35f67e7ea3ce2d9b34 > > ? > > If so, no, that doesn't require a reclone. > > Hmmm. I thought there were also 9.3-only replication fixes in this > release? No? I don't know any. There's further multixact fixes but AFAIK there's nothing replication specific, and they shouldn't cause problems but lost row locks in some edge cases. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-02-14 13:33:46 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 02/14/2014 01:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 2014-02-14 13:08:34 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> Do the 9.3.3 replication fixes mean that users should reclone their > > >> replicas, like 9.3.2 did? Or not? > > > > > > Which replication replication fixes are you referring to? > > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ebde6c40148c9f811f7c6d35f67e7ea3ce2d9b34 > > > ? > > > If so, no, that doesn't require a reclone. > > > > Hmmm. I thought there were also 9.3-only replication fixes in this > > release? No? > > I don't know any. There's further multixact fixes but AFAIK there's > nothing replication specific, and they shouldn't cause problems but lost > row locks in some edge cases. There is one issue that might cause foreign keys to go unchecked. In cases where applications update referenced tuples and then delete them in the same transaction, it might be wise to recheck foreign keys. This is the relevant commit: commit db1014bc46de21a6de1751b807ea084e607104ad Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> Date: Wed Dec 18 13:31:27 2013 -0300 Don't ignore tuple locks propagated by our updates If a tuple was locked by transaction A, and transaction B updatedit, the new version of the tuple created by B would be locked by A, yet visible only to B; due to an oversightin HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate, the lock held by A wouldn't get checked if transaction B later deleted (or key-updated)the new version of the tuple. This might cause referential integrity checks to give false positives (thatis, allow deletes that should have been rejected). This is an easy oversight to have made, because prior to improvedtuple locks in commit 0ac5ad5134f it wasn't possible to have tuples created by our own transaction that werealso locked by remote transactions, and so locks weren't even considered in that code path. It is recommendedthat foreign keys be rechecked manually in bulk after installing this update, in case some referenced rows aremissing with some referencing row remaining. Per bug reported by Daniel Wood in CAPweHKe5QQ1747X2c0tA=5zf4YnS2xcvGf13Opd-1Mq24rF1cQ@mail.gmail.com -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services