C Wegrzyn wrote:
> First, let me thank you for the effort you have been putting into the
> Postgresql development. It is a great system. It performs well and with
> the exception of a few little annoyances is a great competitor to Mysql
> or Oracle!
>
> This particular bug isn't a show stopper; I
First, let me thank you for the effort you have been putting into the
Postgresql development. It is a great system. It performs well and with
the exception of a few little annoyances is a great competitor to Mysql
or Oracle!
This particular bug isn't a show stopper; I could have easily found a
way
Michael Paesold wrote:
> [moved to hackers]
>
> Is this a regression in the stable branches? If so, shouldn't we do a new
> release rather immediately? What do others think about this situation?
>
> Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? How were those
> it handled? I thin
Tom Lane wrote:
"Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past?
Yes. Relax. If this were a data-corruption-in-the-backend issue,
I might feel that it mandates an immediate re-release. But it isn't
and it doesn't. You'll note that M
"Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past?
Yes. Relax. If this were a data-corruption-in-the-backend issue,
I might feel that it mandates an immediate re-release. But it isn't
and it doesn't. You'll note that Michael M. himself
[moved to hackers]
Is this a regression in the stable branches? If so, shouldn't we do a new
release rather immediately? What do others think about this situation?
Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? How were those
it handled? I think "waiting for months" (i.e. for th
