On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:29:06AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> > Seems OK, but I think we need to work a little harder on evicting some >> > things from the list of open items. I don't think all of the things >> > listed in the blockers section really are, and I'm not sure what needs >> > to be done about some of the things that are there. >> >> I've got the libpq row processor thing. That and the CHECK NO INHERIT >> syntax thing are definitely release-blockers, because we won't be able >> to change such decisions post-release (well, we could, but the pain to >> benefit ratio is bad). I guess the SPGiST vs HS issue is a blocker too. >> A lot of the rest look like pre-existing bugs to me. > > The only preexisting issues listed under "Blockers for 9.2" are "GiST indexes > vs fuzzy comparisons used by geometric types" and "Should we fix tuple limit > handling, or redefine 9.x behavior as correct?". Also, I'm not sure what > exactly the "keepalives" item indicates. Whether every regression deserves to > block the release is, of course, a separate question. > > I think "WAL files which were restored from the archive are archived again" is > the thorniest regression, and we don't yet have a patch.
Yep, that's really a problem. Will implement the patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
