On 29 August 2016 at 12:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Fix pg_receivexlog --synchronous
>
> The buildfarm says you broke the 9.5 branch.
>
> In general, pushing inessential patches just a few hours before a wrap
> deadline is a dangerous business. Pushing them without any testing
>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 07:34:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > Fix pg_receivexlog --synchronous
>
> The buildfarm says you broke the 9.5 branch.
>
> In general, pushing inessential patches just a few hours before a wrap
> deadline is a dangerous business. Pushing them witho
Andres Freund writes:
> Do we want to revert this until the release, or does somebody want to
> push the fix?
If this had broken the 9.6 branch I would have already summarily
reverted it. Since it didn't, my only real concern vis-a-vis today's
release is that the build failure in 9.5 calls into
On 2016-08-29 07:34:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > Fix pg_receivexlog --synchronous
>
> The buildfarm says you broke the 9.5 branch.
>
> In general, pushing inessential patches just a few hours before a wrap
> deadline is a dangerous business. Pushing them without any testi
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Fix pg_receivexlog --synchronous
>
> The buildfarm says you broke the 9.5 branch.
>
> In general, pushing inessential patches just a few hours before a wrap
> deadline is a dangerous business. Pushing them without any test
Simon Riggs writes:
> Fix pg_receivexlog --synchronous
The buildfarm says you broke the 9.5 branch.
In general, pushing inessential patches just a few hours before a wrap
deadline is a dangerous business. Pushing them without any testing
is close to irresponsible.
regar
