* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (noah@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