On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent >> status >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > > Based on the ongoing discussion, this is really looking like it's > actually a fix that needs to be back-patched to 9.6 rather than a PG10 > open item. I don't have any issue with keeping it as an open item > though, just mentioning it. I'll provide another status update on or > before Monday, July 31st. > > I'll get to work on the back-patch and try to draft up something to go > into the release notes for 9.6.4.
Whether this is going to be back-patched or not, you should do something about it quickly, because we're wrapping a new beta and a full set of back-branch releases next week. I'm personally hoping that what follows beta3 will be rc1, but if we have too much churn after beta3 we'll end up with a beta4, which could end up slipping the whole release cycle. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers