Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes
John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-05-12T03:38:40Z
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 →
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: more fixes
- 8656ba7f7187 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: various corrections
- 1d751b4b6b01 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: adjust item to mention pg_replication_slots
- cfedd4513357 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: remove "Add fake LSN support to hash index"
- 41b60bf172ef 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: add two optimizer hooks
- cac0f24eb57f 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: remove "Optionally" for CPU optimizations
- 06fccab4c61b 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc PG 19 relnotes: adjustments/removal of items
- 8974a7c433d3 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Use fake LSNs to improve nbtree dropPin behavior.
- 8a879119a1d1 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Clean up ICU includes.
- af2d4ca191a4 19 (unreleased) cited
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 9:35 AM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 5:42 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:40:38PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: > > > > Optionally use AVX2 CPU instructions for calculating page checksums (Matthew Sterrett, Andrew Kim) § > > > > > > > Optionally use ARM Crypto Extension to Compute CRC32C (John Naylor) § > > > > > > There's no option for these, the extensions are used where available. > > > > So, the "Optionally" indicates we use these instructions if the CPU > > supports them. I assume we don't use them on all CPUs. Can you > > suggest better wording? > > > > I think the simplest change would be to replace "optionally" with > "when available", although ISTR we use wording along the lines of "Add > support for" or "is now supported" when runtime/compiler checks are > involved. That would be fine. The v17 and v18 release notes didn't have such qualifying language, for things that are less common than the above (SVE, AVX-512), but whatever. -- John Naylor Amazon Web Services