* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 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.
Yes, I've been working on this and the other issues with pg_dump today. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature