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.
--
Michael