Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> After some discussion, the core committee has concluded that we should go >> ahead with the already-wrapped releases. 9.2.6 and below are good anyway, >> and despite this issue 9.3.2 is an improvement over 9.3.1. We'll plan to >> do a 9.3.3 as soon as the multixact situation can be straightened out; >> but let's learn from experience and not try to fix it in a panic.
> I would suggest we include this one fix in 9.3.2a. This bug is more > serious than the others because it happens because of checking HTSU on a > tuple containing running locker-only transactions and an aborted update. The effect is just that the lockers could lose their locks early, right? While that's annoying, it's not *directly* a data corruption problem. And I've lost any enthusiasm I might've had for quick fixes in this area. I think it'd be better to wait a few days, think this over, and get the other problem fixed as well. In any case, I think we're already past the point where we could re-wrap 9.3.2; the tarballs have been in the hands of packagers for > 24 hours. We'd have to call it 9.3.3. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers