On 10/4/18 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes: >> On 10/4/18 8:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> I am suggesting to fix the issue after RC1 is released, but before GA. > >> That approach would mean we would require an RC2, which would further >> delay the GA. > > Not sure about that. Alvaro seems to think there's a generic problem > in event trigger processing, which if true, was likely there pre-v11. > I don't think that patches that get back-patched further than 11 > need to restart the RC clock.
Well, unless we are targeting it for the release? AIUI the RCs are should be equivalent to GA[1] (and yes I see the qualifier of "should be"). > >> Ideally it would be great if this was fixed for RC1. However, given the >> choice of pushing the release out further vs. saving the fix for .1 >> which would be relatively soon, I would vote for the latter. > > There are definitely good calendar reasons to hold to the schedule of > RC1 next week and GA the week after. I'd only want to blow up that > plan if we hit something that is both very bad and very hard to fix. > > However, if we have a fix that we believe in that's available post-RC1, > I'm not sure I see why it's better to sit on it till after GA. I'm not opposed; after seeing the "should be" qualifier I feel more comfortable with the above proposal. Jonathan [1] https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1783/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
