On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info>wrote:

> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
>> Does this include the patches to fix memory-leak, sent recently by Ulrich
>> Weber?
>>
>
> It does not.
>
> The memory corruption issue that appeared in 2.0.3 was caused by an attempt
> to fix memory leak issues that were a placed a bit too early in the code
> (that particular leak was fixed with the fix that was included in 2.0.3) so
> I'm a bit uneasy about trying to push more memory leak fixes into this
> release.
>
> My inclination is to commit those to the 2.0 branch just after we release
> 2.0.4 so they'd be included in 2.0.5 so they'd be able to sit in cvs a bit
> longer (and have the benefit of more of the automated tests we are working
> on being finished)
>
> Having said that, if the user community thinks they should be included in
> 2.0.4 I'm open to arguments.
>
> Particularly if
>
> A) Some people have already been using/testing these fixes against the 2.0
> branch and are reporting success
>
> B) People are finding these memory leaks a big deal vs a minor annoyance.
>
>
One of our customers is looking to deploy this in an almost unattended
environment, and having memory leaks in Slon will most definitely hurt their
ability to deploy it with confidence.

I would prefer to see the patch incorporated in 2.0.4 and have people test
the RC1 than have it included after 2.0.4 in the hopes that people would
test the CVS version.

Regards,
-- 
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com

singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20100528/fcec12a5/attachment.htm