* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > >> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. > >> >> Kindly send > >> >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent > >> >> status > >> >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > >> > > >> > Based on the ongoing discussion, this is really looking like it's > >> > actually a fix that needs to be back-patched to 9.6 rather than a PG10 > >> > open item. I don't have any issue with keeping it as an open item > >> > though, just mentioning it. I'll provide another status update on or > >> > before Monday, July 31st. > >> > > >> > I'll get to work on the back-patch and try to draft up something to go > >> > into the release notes for 9.6.4. > >> > >> Whether this is going to be back-patched or not, you should do > >> something about it quickly, because we're wrapping a new beta and a > >> full set of back-branch releases next week. I'm personally hoping > >> that what follows beta3 will be rc1, but if we have too much churn > >> after beta3 we'll end up with a beta4, which could end up slipping the > >> whole release cycle. > > > > Yes, I've been working on this and the other issues with pg_dump today. > > Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could get one out of > my pocket if necessary.
I was just trying to find a bit of time to generate exactly that- if you have a couple spare cycles, it would certainly help. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
