On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > On 08/31/2012 06:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >>> >>> I'm not sure what we need to do to progress on this, especially re the >>> back branches. >> >> The calendar might help us here. 9.2 is due to wrap next week, but it >> will likely be a couple of months before we contemplate new back-branch >> releases. So we could push a fix that we don't have 100% confidence in, >> knowing that there is time to recover before it will ship in any of the >> proven branches. Releasing it in 9.2.0 will afford an opportunity for >> more testing than we can do by ourselves. >> >> That's not to take anything away from the fact that we ought to test as >> many cases as we can now. But we do have some margin for error. >> >> > > > > OK, so I have tested it on my 32bit setup and it's working, so I'm going to > commit this for HEAD/9.2 now, so we can get that wider testing.
Thanks Andrew. Owais, can you please test on both PG and PPAS? -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers