On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Peter, all,
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation 
> > >> for
> > >> 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical 
> > >> bug
> > >> so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work 
> > >> on a
> > >> fix I think we should commit it.
> > > 
> > > I agree with you. I'd like to hear opinions from other hackers as well.
> > 
> > It's preferable to make it work.  If it's not easily possible, then we
> > should prohibit it.
> > 
> > Comments from Stephen (original committer)?
> I agree that it'd be preferable to make it work, but I'm not sure I can
> commit to having it done in short order.  I'm happy to work to prohibit
> it, but if someone has a few spare cycles to make it actually work,
> that'd be great.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Stephen,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to