On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * 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.
Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could get one out of my pocket if necessary. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers