On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I think this whole discussion is starting with the wrong premise. This >> is not a bug fix; therefore, it's 9.1 material. > > Failing to store stats isn't a bug?
Well, it kind of sounds more like you're removing a known limitation than fixing a bug. It's not as if the behavior fails to match the comment. I'm pretty hesitant to see us making any changes to 9.0 that aren't necessary to fix existing bugs or new regressions. What I want to do with 9.0 is get it stable and ship it. I'm not really terribly concerned about the possibility of an ABI break even at this late date, but I *am* concerned about the possibility either of (1) unforeseen consequences necessitating further patching or (2) getting distracted from the business of getting the release out the door. We've been in feature freeze for more than five months, so I think it's certainly time try to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of changes that "need" to be made before release. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
