* Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * 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.
>
> Do you need a back-patchable version for 9.6? I could get one out of
> my pocket if necessary.
I was just trying to find a bit of time to generate exactly that- if
you have a couple spare cycles, it would certainly help.
Thanks!
Stephen