On 08/31/2012 06:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> I'm not sure what we need to do to progress on this, especially re the
>> back branches.
> The calendar might help us here. 9.2 is due to wrap next week, but it
> will likely be a couple of months before we contemplate new back-branch
> releases. So we could push a fix that we don't have 100% confidence in,
> knowing that there is time to recover before it will ship in any of the
> proven branches. Releasing it in 9.2.0 will afford an opportunity for
> more testing than we can do by ourselves.
>
> That's not to take anything away from the fact that we ought to test as
> many cases as we can now. But we do have some margin for error.
>
>
OK, so I have tested it on my 32bit setup and it's working, so I'm going
to commit this for HEAD/9.2 now, so we can get that wider testing.
cheers
andrew