Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> writes: > On 17 August 2011 16:56, Jan UrbaÅski <wulc...@wulczer.org> wrote: >> On 17/08/11 17:50, Thom Brown wrote: >>> It's not listed as a beta-blocker yet. I take it that it should?
>> Oh, in the wiki? I don't know, it is a segfault-causing bug, but all I >> wanted was to draw some attention in case the people wrapping the >> release missed that thread. > It was my understanding that the only things which can prevent a new beta or > release candidate are listed on the wiki ( > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Open_Items). There's only > one item on the list now, and I think even that has probably been fixed. If > it's not on there, I guess it hasn't yet been considered to be something > which can block a release. Since it's not even listed as a non-blocker > either, I don't think it's been reviewed in this context. I think you're imagining a lot more structure than actually exists in this project ;-). Anybody can edit that page, and there's no necessary consequence of something being written there. It's just notes to help us keep track of issues, not something graven on stone tablets. The pg_upgrade thing is listed as a beta blocker because I put it there --- but that's just my opinion. If it had proven hard to fix we might have concluded that we wouldn't let it block a beta release. If the plpython thing is a new crash that didn't exist before 9.1, my feeling is that it's a blocker. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers