Re: PG 18 release notes draft committed

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Alexander Borisov <lex.borisov@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-05-04T01:21:24Z
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. doc PG 18 relnotes: add AFTER trigger user change item

  2. doc PG 18 relnotes: modify async I/O item for other improvements

  3. doc PG 18 relnotes: split apart log_connections item

  4. doc PG 18 relnotes: move ANALYZE item,split ANALYZE/EXPLAIN item

  5. doc PG 18 relnotes: clarify multiplication item

  6. doc PG 18 relnotes: add removal details to MD5 item

  7. doc PG 18 relnotes: fix markup

  8. doc PG 18 relnotes: clarify btree skip-scan item

  9. doc PG 18 relnotes: update to current

  10. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust CREATE SUBSCRIPTION attribution

  11. doc PG 18 relnotes: clarify btree skip scan item

  12. doc PG 18 relnotes: mv. hash joins and GROUP BY item to General

  13. Add support for runtime arguments in injection points

  14. doc PG 18 relnotes: fix missing parens for crc32c()

  15. PG 18 relnotes: adjust RETURNING new/old item

  16. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust pg_log_backend_memory_contexts()

  17. doc PG 18 relnotes: add pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() mention

  18. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust pgbench per-script reporting item

  19. doc PG 18 relnotes: mention GROUP SET fixes

  20. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust partition planning item

  21. doc PG 18 relnotes: small adjustments regarding options

  22. doc PG 18 relnotes: move partition locking item to General Perf

  23. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust partition items

  24. doc PG 18 relnotes: reword OAuth item

  25. doc PG 18 relnotes: add mention of pg_stat_reset_backend_stats()

  26. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust hash item

  27. doc PG 18 relnotes: split partition optimizer item into two

  28. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust COPY and REJECT_LIMIT items

  29. doc PG 18 relnotes: move and clarify constraint items

  30. doc PG 18 relnotes: add commit for cancel key and protocol neg.

  31. doc PG 18 relnotes: fix libpq wording

  32. doc PG 18 relnotes: add GROUP BY column elimination item

  33. doc PG 18 relnotes: move protocol version item to "server"

  34. doc PG 18 relnotes: adjust libpq trace & potocol version items

  35. doc PG 18 relnotes: reword and reorder items

  36. doc: Fix memory context level in pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() example.

  37. Make levels 1-based in pg_log_backend_memory_contexts()

  38. Introduce file_copy_method setting.

  39. libpq: Handle NegotiateProtocolVersion message differently

  40. Add timingsafe_bcmp(), for constant-time memory comparison

  41. Optimization for lower(), upper(), casefold() functions.

  42. Fix ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET PUBLICATION ... command.

  43. Add connection establishment duration logging

  44. Modularize log_connections output

  45. Ensure that AFTER triggers run as the instigating user.

  46. Detect redundant GROUP BY columns using UNIQUE indexes

  47. Move cancel key generation to after forking the backend

On Sun, May  4, 2025 at 02:48:31AM +0300, Alexander Borisov wrote:
> 04.05.2025 02:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't warrant its own item because it is not user-facing work.  The
> > best we can do is add the commit to an existing item and add you as a
> > co-author on an existing item.  You will see several items that are that
> > way already.
> > 
> 
> Thank you for clarifying!
> Users are not interested in performance gains.
> Then it's not worth considering. Sorry to interrupt.

So the logic is something I posted to this thread already:

	So, a few things.  First, these set of commits was in a group of 10 that
	I added since there have been complaints in the past that optimizer
	improvements were not listed and therefore patch authors were not given
	sufficient credit.  That means the 209 item count for PG 18 is 10 higher
	than my normal filtering would produce.
	
	Second, looking at the items, these are a case of "X is faster", which
	we don't normally mention in the release notes.  We normally mention
	"faster" when it is so much faster that use cases which were not
	possible before might be possible now, so it is recommended to retest.
	That is what I saw this grouped item as, whereas I don't think the
	individual items meet that criteria.

So, users are interested in performance in the sense it makes use cases
possible, and if your commit is making the case folding useful, we
should mention it in the release notes.  I don't think making it
separate would fit though.

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

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.