Horton

Re: Draft release notes complete

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

View thread
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: 2012-05-25T17:45:35Z
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. Expose track_iotiming information via pg_stat_statements.

  2. Rewrite GiST support code for rangetypes.

  3. Clean up a couple of box gist helper functions.

  4. Replace the "New Linear" GiST split algorithm for boxes and points with a

On 5/24/12 2:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely
>>> advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit "group commit" in
>>> release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature.
>>
>> First, shouldn't we be having this discussion on -advocacy?
> 
> Well, no, because this is a specific discussion about release notes.

True, but there's also the question of what we call this in the
promotional materials.

> In any case, I've given up on the idea that we should market new group
> commit as "group commit". I believe that that would be a useful and
> fair way of representing the feature, but there doesn't seem to be any
> support for that view.

What else would you call it?  What's wrong with "Better Group Commit"?

From my perspective, it's pretty simple: we had group commit before, but
the new group commit is much better.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com