Horton

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-24T17:50:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Revert support for ALTER TABLE ... MERGE/SPLIT PARTITION(S) commands

  2. When creating materialized views, use REFRESH to load data.

  3. Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys

  4. Avoid needless large memcpys in libpq socket writing

  5. Enhance nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution.

  6. Introduce a non-recursive JSON parser

  7. Combine freezing and pruning steps in VACUUM

  8. Allow SIGINT to cancel psql database reconnections.

  9. Provide API for streaming relation data.

  10. Add hash support functions and hash opclass for contrib/ltree.

  11. Pull up ANY-SUBLINK with the necessary lateral support.

  12. Read WAL directly from WAL buffers.

  13. Introduce the dynamic shared memory registry.

  14. Add macros for looping through a List without a ListCell.

  15. Support +/- infinity in the interval data type.

  16. Extend ALTER OPERATOR to allow setting more optimization attributes.

  17. Consider cheap startup paths in add_paths_to_append_rel

Hi,

On 2024-05-23 23:27:04 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:11:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I am not sure Bruce that you realize that your disregard for
> > performance improvements is shared by nobody.  Arguably,
> > performance is 90% of what we do these days, and it's also
> > 90% of what users care about.
>
> Please stop saying I don't document performance.  I have already
> explained enough which performance items I choose.  Please address my
> criteria or suggest new criteria.

Bruce, just about everyone seems to disagree with your current approach. And
not just this year, this has been a discussion in most if not all release note
threads of the last few years.

People, including me, *have* addressed your criteria, but you just waved those
concerns away. It's hard to continue discussing criteria when it doesn't at
all feel like a conversation.

In the end, these are patches to the source code, I don't think you can just
wave away widespread disagreement with your changes. That's not how we do
postgres development.

Greetings,

Andres Freund