Horton

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

View thread
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-23T02:27:07Z
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 Thu, 23 May 2024 at 14:01, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 01:34:10PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > What is the best way to communicate this stuff so it's easily
> > identifiable when you parse the commit messages?
>
> This is why I think we need an "Internal Performance" section where we
> can be clear about simple scaling improvements that might have no
> user-visible explanation.  I would suggest putting it after our "Source
> code" section.

hmm, but that does not really answer my question. There's still a
communication barrier if you're parsing the commit messages are
committers don't clearly state some performance improvement numbers
for the reason I stated.

I also don't agree these should be left to "Source code" section. I
feel that section is best suited for extension authors who might care
about some internal API change.  I'm talking of stuff that makes some
user queries possibly N times (!) faster. Surely "Source Code" isn't
the place to talk about that?

David