Horton

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-09T06:37:57Z
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, May 9, 2024 at 12:04 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> I have committed the first draft of the PG 17 release notes;  you can
> see the results here:
>
>         https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-17.html


Thanks for working on that.

For this item:


> Allow the optimizer to improve CTE plans by using the sort order of
> columns referenced in earlier CTE clauses (Jian Guo)


I think you mean a65724dfa.  The author should be 'Richard Guo'.

And I'm wondering if it is more accurate to state it as "Allow the
optimizer to improve plans for the outer query by leveraging the sort
order of a CTE's output."

I think maybe a similar revision can be applied to the item just above
this one.

Thanks
Richard