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