Horton

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-18T14:40:50Z
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

Attachments

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 03:35:17PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 14:48, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:13:14AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > Also +1 on the Sawada/Naylor change being on the highlight section of
> > > the release (as David suggested upthread).
> >
> > Agreed, I went with the attached applied patch.
> 
> +Allow vacuum to more efficiently store tuple references and remove
> its memory limit (Masahiko Sawada, John Naylor)
> +</para>
> 
> I don't want it to seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I'd drop the "
> and remove its memory limit"
> 
> +<para>
> +Specifically, maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum_work_mem can now be
> configured to use more than one gigabyte of memory.  WAL traffic
> caused by vacuum is also more compact.
> 
> I'd say the first sentence above should be written as:
> 
> "Additionally, vacuum no longer silently imposes a 1GB tuple reference
> limit even when maintenance_work_mem or autovacuum_work_mem are set to
> higher values"
> 
> It's not "Specifically" as the "more efficiently store tuple
> references" isn't the same thing as removing the 1GB cap. Also, there
> was never a restriction in configuring maintenance_work_mem or
> autovacuum_work_mem  to values higher than 1GB. The restriction was
> that vacuum was unable to utilize anything more than that.

Slightly adjusted wording patch attached and applied.

My deep apologies for the delay in addressing this.  I should have done
it sooner.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.