AFAIK we are go for 7.2RC1.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:24:43 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Ready for RC1?

Yup, going to bundle her first thing when I get up tomorrow (or, rather,
later today, looking at the time *grin*)


On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> AFAIK we are go for 7.2RC1.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>


Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:34:01 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Ready for RC1?
[2002-01-19 01:34] Marc G. Fournier said:
| 
| Yup, going to bundle her first thing when I get up tomorrow (or, rather,
| later today, looking at the time *grin*)

Is this rolled yet?  I haven't seen it in any mirrors and haven't
been able to get on ftp.postgresql.org (which I assume is ftp master).

thanks.
  brent

-- 
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are 
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman

Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:32:12 -0500
Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org>
Re: Ready for RC1?
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:

> [2002-01-19 01:34] Marc G. Fournier said:
> |
> | Yup, going to bundle her first thing when I get up tomorrow (or, rather,
> | later today, looking at the time *grin*)
>
> Is this rolled yet?  I haven't seen it in any mirrors and haven't
> been able to get on ftp.postgresql.org (which I assume is ftp master).

No ... I've held off waiting on a resolution of the problem that Tom Lane
brought up with the RTLD_* stuff, since if any changes in there are going
in, they should be done *at least* before RC1 ...


Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:10:29 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Ready for RC1?
Marc G. Fournier writes:

> No ... I've held off waiting on a resolution of the problem that Tom Lane
> brought up with the RTLD_* stuff, since if any changes in there are going
> in, they should be done *at least* before RC1 ...

We're not doing that in this release, AFAIK.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:51:04 -0500 (EST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Ready for RC1?

Tom, can you confirm that you don't want to do this for at least the Linux
case?  If not, will roll her ...


On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > No ... I've held off waiting on a resolution of the problem that Tom Lane
> > brought up with the RTLD_* stuff, since if any changes in there are going
> > in, they should be done *at least* before RC1 ...
>
> We're not doing that in this release, AFAIK.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net
>
>


Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:06:08 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Ready for RC1?
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> No ... I've held off waiting on a resolution of the problem that Tom Lane
> brought up with the RTLD_* stuff, since if any changes in there are going
> in, they should be done *at least* before RC1 ...

I think the consensus is that we should not risk the RTLD_* change now.

I put in a Makefile hack to cure the immediate issue with Red Hat's Tcl
RPMs, so I think we're good to go on RC1.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:29:10 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Ready for RC1? 
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Tom, can you confirm that you don't want to do this for at least the Linux
> case?  If not, will roll her ...

Yes, I think we should sit tight on this for 7.2.  There seemed to be
some people arguing that RTLD_LAZY might be better; I disagree, but
will not force the issue until the argument is settled.  Let's roll...

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:10:35 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Ready for RC1? 