Horton

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-26T03:57:01Z
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 23, 2024 at 08:19:15PM -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 6:50 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Agreed, patch applied, thanks.
> 
> The item for my commit 5bf748b8 currently reads:
> 
> "Allow btree indexes to more efficiently find array matches"
> 
> I think that this isn't likely to mean much to most users. It seems
> like it'd be a lot clearer if the wording was more in line with the
> beta1 announcement, which talks about the work as an enhancement to
> index scans that use an IN ( ) condition. Specifically referencing
> IN() (as opposed to something about arrays or array conditions) is
> likely to make the item much more understandable.
> 
> Referencing array matches makes me think of a GIN index on an array
> column. While ScalarArrayOps do use an array under the cover, that's
> mostly an implementation detail. At least it is to users that
> exclusively use IN(), likely the majority (that's the SQL standard
> syntax).
> 
> For context, the Postgres 9.2 release notes described the feature that
> my work directly built on as follows:
> 
> "Allow indexed_col op ANY(ARRAY[...]) conditions to be used in plain
> index scans and index-only scans"
> 
> This was a very accurate description of this earlier work. Similar
> wording could be used now, but that doesn't seem great to me either.
> Simply because this wording also doesn't reference IN() conditions in
> index quals.

Agreed.  I changed it to:

	Allow btree indexes to more efficiently find a set of values, such as
	those supplied by IN subqueries

Is that good?

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

  Only you can decide what is important to you.