9.2 final

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

So, when are we thinking we might release 9.2.0?

We've done a fall release the last two years, but it's not obvious to
me that we have a whole lot of blockers left.  In fact, the only
blocker for which we have nothing that looks like a fix at present
seems to be this:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/17129.1331607036@sss.pgh.pa.us

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

I am eagerly waiting for the release!!!(Excuse me if I am
over-excited,but this is the first release for me as a community
member.

Atri

--
Regards,

Atri
l'apprenant

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

So, when are we thinking we might release 9.2.0?

We've done a fall release the last two years, but it's not obvious
to me that we have a whole lot of blockers left.

I'm working on getting all of our triggers to behave with Tom's v8
patch for bug 6123 and hope to be able to post a positive result
tomorrow. I think this is considered a bug and still subject to
inclusion, but it doesn't really cause my shop any pain if it is
bumped to 9.3. In other words, I don't think this is a blocker.

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9698.1327266271@sss.pgh.pa.us

-Kevin

Robert,

Hmmm. I was assuming September, given how late the beta came out, and that nobody has previously talked seriously about a June release. I'll also point out that while there's a beta2 tarball, there was no announcement and no packages for it.

If we decide to do June, then PR will be minimal because I was assuming I had another 7 weeks to prepare it. Not that that should be the deciding factor (it would be great to get out an early release and get it out of the way) but it should be taken into consideration.

----- Original Message -----

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Robert,

Hmmm.  I was assuming September, given how late the beta came out, and that nobody has previously talked seriously about a June release.  I'll also point out that while there's a beta2 tarball, there was no announcement and no packages for it.

There were packages the following day (well, installers at least), but
they're the first builds from a new build environment, so I don't
exactly trust them yet - I'd want at least one more beta and an RC.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 11 June 2012 18:02, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Hmmm.  I was assuming September, given how late the beta came out, and that nobody has previously talked seriously about a June release.  I'll also point out that while there's a beta2 tarball, there was no announcement and no packages for it.

If we decide to do June, then PR will be minimal because I was assuming I had another 7 weeks to prepare it.  Not that that should be the deciding factor (it would be great to get out an early release and get it out of the way) but it should be taken into consideration.

Not really sure why we're discussing it.

We've always had a long beta cycle and this seems to cut it very short
at both ends.

If we're going to have a fixed cutoff date for patches then having a
variable release date seems weird, unless it is to elongate it to fix
bugs.

Let me put it this way: is there a benefit to changing the plan?
Anyone desperate for the new features is already using them, and we're
relying upon that to throw up bugs during beta.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:38:54AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:

On 11 June 2012 18:02, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Hmmm.  I was assuming September, given how late the beta came out,
and that nobody has previously talked seriously about a June
release.  I'll also point out that while there's a beta2 tarball,
there was no announcement and no packages for it.

If we decide to do June, then PR will be minimal because I was
assuming I had another 7 weeks to prepare it.  Not that that
should be the deciding factor (it would be great to get out an
early release and get it out of the way) but it should be taken
into consideration.

Not really sure why we're discussing it.

We've always had a long beta cycle and this seems to cut it very
short at both ends.

I'm not sure I understand how having a long beta cycle is a good
thing, or even whether you're saying it is. Could you please clarify?

If we're going to have a fixed cutoff date for patches then having a
variable release date seems weird, unless it is to elongate it to fix
bugs.

Let me put it this way: is there a benefit to changing the plan?

Sure. If it's ready to go, there's no point holding it back.
Downstream projects get a little extra integration time, etc.

Anyone desperate for the new features is already using them, and we're
relying upon that to throw up bugs during beta.

I'm always grateful to those brave souls who "go there" with versions
of PostgreSQL that aren't even beta. They're a big chunk of why it
might well be OK to step toward this major release :)

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

If we decide to do June, then PR will be minimal because I was assuming I had another 7 weeks to prepare it.  Not that that should be the deciding factor (it would be great to get out an early release and get it out of the way) but it should be taken into consideration.

Well, so far, enthusiasm for getting a release out sooner than the
fall seems pretty limited. Barring an uptick in enthusiasm, I think
you're going to get your 7 weeks.

Personally, I like getting releases out the door sooner, because then
people can start using the features sooner. And that's the whole
point, isn't it? But with no PR and no installers it won't be much of
a "release", so I think we have to wait. We might want to try to
start putting together some dates for beta3 and/or rc1, though, even
if they're a bit further out, so that the people who have to do work
around that can know what dates they're trying to hit.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:

Let me put it this way: is there a benefit to changing the plan?

The plan is, and always has been, "we'll release when it's ready".
We generally suppose that a release is ready when the rate of bug
reports against the beta has dropped off substantially. It's certainly
absurd to claim that 9.2 has reached that stage.

Personally I'd very much like to see 9.2 out before the fall, mainly
because I'd like to get it into Fedora 18 (which would require 9.2.0
to be out by early September at the latest). But getting it out in
June would require abandoning every standard for release quality we've
ever had.

regards, tom lane

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:

Let me put it this way: is there a benefit to changing the plan?

The plan is, and always has been, "we'll release when it's ready".
We generally suppose that a release is ready when the rate of bug
reports against the beta has dropped off substantially.  It's certainly
absurd to claim that 9.2 has reached that stage.

Personally I'd very much like to see 9.2 out before the fall, mainly
because I'd like to get it into Fedora 18 (which would require 9.2.0
to be out by early September at the latest).  But getting it out in
June would require abandoning every standard for release quality we've
ever had.

Yeah, I don't hink that's reasonable at all.

And it doesn't make sense to release in july or at least first half of
august due to vacations. Maybe all of august. Which has us in early
september anyway.

But if we believe we've taken care of all known open issues fairly
soon, getting an RC out rather than a beta before people go on
vacation would probably be a good thing...

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

But if we believe we've taken care of all known open issues fairly
soon, getting an RC out rather than a beta before people go on
vacation would probably be a good thing...

Yeah, that's the other reason I'm not so wild about a June release; I
have a whole list of tests I want to do against beta2, and to date I've
done none of them.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:

I'm working on getting all of our triggers to behave with Tom's v8
patch for bug 6123 and hope to be able to post a positive result
tomorrow. I think this is considered a bug and still subject to
inclusion, but it doesn't really cause my shop any pain if it is
bumped to 9.3. In other words, I don't think this is a blocker.

Testing has run into problems, the cause of which is not immediately
obvious. I think we should bump this to 9.3. Our shop has a
workaround which isn't drawing any complaints here, and the issue
has been around forever in its current form. I'm not even sure we
won't need more discussion on what constitutes correct behavior once
I track things down.

Any objections?

-Kevin

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:

I'm working on getting all of our triggers to behave with Tom's v8
patch for bug 6123 and hope to be able to post a positive result
tomorrow. I think this is considered a bug and still subject to
inclusion, but it doesn't really cause my shop any pain if it is
bumped to 9.3. In other words, I don't think this is a blocker.

Testing has run into problems, the cause of which is not immediately
obvious. I think we should bump this to 9.3. Our shop has a
workaround which isn't drawing any complaints here, and the issue
has been around forever in its current form. I'm not even sure we
won't need more discussion on what constitutes correct behavior once
I track things down.

Agreed. Even if we were entirely happy with the design of the patch
(which, from the previous discussion, we weren't 100%) and your testing
gave it a clean bill of health, it's uncomfortable to be pushing such a
change into 9.2 post-beta --- it might invalidate other peoples'
application compatibility checking, which I'm sure people have started
doing using the betas. Punting to 9.3 seems like the thing to do.

regards, tom lane