* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > This thread badly needs a more informative Subject line.
Agreed. > But, yeah: do people think the referenced commit fixes a bug bad enough > to deserve a quick update release? If so, why? Multiple reports of > problems in the field would be a good reason, but I've not seen such. Uh, isn't what brought this to light two independent complaints from Peter and Greg Stark of seeing corruption in the field due to this? Peter's initial email also indicated it was two different systems which had gotten bit by this and Greg explicitly stated that he was working on an independent database from what Peter was reporting on, so that's at least 2 (one each), or 3 (if you count databases, as Peter had 2). Sure, they're all from Heroku, but I find it highly unlikely no one else has run into this issue. More likely, they simply haven't realized it's happened to them (which is another reason this is a particularly nasty bug..). I understand that another release makes work for everyone, and that stinks, and it's also no fun in the press to have *another* release that is fixing corruption issues, but sitting on a fix which is actively causing corruption in the field isn't any good either. So, my +1 is for a "quick update release"- and if there's a way I can help offload some of the work (or at least learn the steps to help with offloading in the future), I'm happy to do so- just let me know. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature