Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Just to be clear, it looks like "Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated
> tuple" (46c35116ae1acc8826705ef2a7b5d9110f9d6e84) went in before 10.0
> was stamped, but "Fix traversal of half-frozen update chains"
> (22576734b805fb0952f9be841ca8f643694ee868) went in afterwards and is
> therefore unreleased at present.
Thanks for doing this analysis of the actual effects in 10.0.
> Personally, I think it would be best to push the release out a week.
I would only be in favor of that if there were some reason to think that
the bug is worse now than it's been in the four years since 9.3 was
released. Otherwise, we should ship the bug fixes we have on-schedule.
I think it's a very very safe bet that there are other data-loss-causing
bugs in there, so I see no good reason for panicking over this one.
> ... and (I know you're all tired of hearing me say this) patches that
> implicate the on-disk format are scary.
Agreed, but how is that relevant now that the bogus patches are reverted?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
