Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA39002
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01741;
	Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:43:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Ken J. Wright" <ken@ori-ind.com>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] firewall crashes backend 
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 08 Sep 1999 15:39:40 -0700
	<3.0.1.32.19990908153940.00960e20@ori-ind.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 20:43:46 -0400
Message-ID: <1739.936837826@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Ken J. Wright" <ken@ori-ind.com> writes:
> Tom, this raises a question. I never really know whether reporting these
> errors via the interfaces list is adequate to get the fix in a future
> snapshot or full release. Should I submit an official bug report, or is
> this good enough to enter the pipeline?

Well, the Approved Way To Do It is to submit a bug report on pgsql-bugs.
Now the people who are likely to do something about a bug also read most
of the other pgsql lists, so an informal report on one of the other
lists is often enough to get the ball rolling.  But, at least in theory,
a report on the bugs list is less likely to get missed in the hubbub of
non-bug discussions --- especially if you guess wrong about which of the
other lists is most relevant to the source of the bug.

> And how might I get confirmation on a fix. I don't follow the cvs, but
> probably there is a change log there?  Even the listed changes/fixes
> for the full/patch releases are a bit terse and sometimes difficult to
> know if the listed fixes have cured a problem.

We don't have a useful system in place for tracking the status of
a reported bug, unfortunately.  I tried to stir up some interest in
using a bug-tracking database on the pgsql website for that purpose,
but the initial experiment seems to have been a resounding flop :-(.
I think we got confused about the difference between *reporting* bugs
--- something that pgsql-bugs is perfectly fine for --- and *tracking*
work on acknowledged bugs --- something that isn't getting done very
well now.

Right now the only real way to keep tabs on bug status is to read
the cvs-committers list (note there is a daily digest, which may be
more convenient than a live subscription), and hope that whoever
fixes your problem will write a log message that you will recognize
as addressing the bug...

			regards, tom lane