Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > Yes, that would be a way forward for 9.6 if we are not able to close > blocking open items before beta1. However, I think it would be bad if we > miss some of the below listed important features like snapshot_too_old or > atomic pin/unpin for 9.6. Can we consider to postpone beta1, so that the > patch authors get time to resolve blocking issues?
This was already considered and rejected by the release team. Most of the patches in question went in very close to the feature freeze deadline (all but one, in fact, in the last week) and there is every reason to suspect that they were rushed rather than really being ready to commit. We should not allow an entire year's worth of work to slide in the possibly-vain hope that these few patches can get fixed up if they're given more time. The bigger picture here is that we'd all like to get back to development sooner rather than later. The longer it takes to stabilize 9.6, the longer it will be before the tree reopens for new development. That consideration should make us very willing to revert problematic changes and let their authors try again in the next cycle. 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