Horton

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-21T18:53:39Z
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

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:26 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the vacuum WAL volume reduction, there were a bunch of smaller
> projects throughout the last development year that I worked on that
> were committed by different people and with different individual
> benefits. Some changes caused vacuum to do less visibility checks (so
> less CPU usage), some changed WAL format in a way that saves some
> space, and some, like the commit you mention, make vacuum emit less
> WAL. That commit by itself doesn't contain all of the user benefits of
> the whole project. I couldn't think of a good place to list all of the
> commits together that were part of the same project. Perhaps you could
> argue that they were not in fact part of the same project and instead
> were just small individual changes -- none of which are individually
> worth including in the release notes.

Yeah, I think a lot of projects have this problem in one way or
another, but I think it may be worse for performance-related projects.

I wasn't intending to knock that particular commit, just to be clear,
or the commit message. I'm just saying that sometimes summarizing the
commit log may not be as easy as we'd hope.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com