scheduling

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 20:13, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

Do we have a projected data for the next 9.0 wrap, and will it be
beta5 or rc1?  How much should we worry about the remaining open
items?

If we are taking a vote, I +1 for rc1 :).

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items

I am inclined to say that all three of the items currently on the list
need to be addressed in some way before we move forward... or at least
the last two.

* ExplainOnePlan handles snapshots differently than ProcessQuery

Isn't this one not specific to 9.0? If so I don't think it should be
a "blocker".

* Backup procedure is wrong?

This *sounds* like a documentation bug, seems like something we can
fix while in -rc to me.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Do we have a projected data for the next 9.0 wrap, and will it be
beta5 or rc1?

No, and don't know ;-). It won't be till after the 15th because
assorted people are on vacation. Perhaps a reasonable plan is to
wrap on the 19th (week from Thursday), and to decide mid next week
whether we feel good about calling it rc1.

How much should we worry about the remaining open items?
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items

I am inclined to say that all three of the items currently on the list
need to be addressed in some way before we move forward... or at least
the last two.

* ExplainOnePlan handles snapshots differently than ProcessQuery
* Backup procedure is wrong?
* Walreceiver crashes in AIX

I don't think that now is an appropriate time to be messing with the
first item. It is not a 9.0 regression --- the behavior has been that
way for years --- and it is not closely related to any changes we made
in 9.0. If we'd discovered the issue after 9.0.0 release there would
have been absolutely no suggestion of back-patching a change. Also,
it didn't seem to me that we had consensus on what to do about it,
so the thought of a hasty change scares me.

We do need to resolve the others.

regards, tom lane