From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
        Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        "Shinoda,
    Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP)" <noriyoshi.shinoda@hpe.com>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg15b3: recovery fails with wal prefetch enabled
In-reply-to: <7b52105d-b1ae-1c51-1794-2280e7c8cf06@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CA+hUKGLYYaXWQfoEgPLsQ-6DwpEUZzbh6g_xhfF+yN=jTHC1mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGL=+0nF8o8xG5DDUepG0ZxgDXusF=Jqtd7FmtFvmR1Gmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGJXfQJHs2jmVOoOo2J12-6m36E0ytDiyrqp-EvFwupvew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220905.143436.1254379754225361598.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKG+vsm00hYtwSyQX9T2cw3qX_d6ZDgAtT9Z+4reO4ePt8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGJxUy9EW-vkiqN_iYO5TFEJfijSwLrQCdHCB8KkVVWmgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7b52105d-b1ae-1c51-1794-2280e7c8cf06@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 05 Sep 2022 21:45:48 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3012982.1662429098.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 21:51:38 -0400
Message-ID: <3012983.1662429098@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3012983.1662429098%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 9/5/22 7:18 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Well I was about to commit this, but beta4 just got stamped (but not
>> yet tagged).  I see now that Jonathan (with RMT hat on, CC'd) meant
>> commits should be in by the *start* of the 5th AoE, not the end.  So
>> the procedural/RMT question is whether it's still possible to close
>> this item in beta4.

> Presumably because Tom stamped it, the released is wrapped so it 
> wouldn't make Beta 4, but I defer to him to see if it can be included 
> with the tag.

I already made the tarballs available to packagers, so adding this
would involve a re-wrap and great confusion.  In any case, I'm not
a fan of pushing fixes within a day or two of the wrap deadline,
let alone after it; you get inadequate buildfarm coverage when you
cut corners that way.  I think this one missed the boat.

			regards, tom lane