Hi, On 2023-05-21 22:46:58 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Looking through the release notes, I didn't see an entry for > > > > commit c6e0fe1f2a08505544c410f613839664eea9eb21 > > Author: David Rowley <drow...@postgresql.org> > > Date: 2022-08-29 17:15:00 +1200 > > > > Improve performance of and reduce overheads of memory management > > > > even though I think that's one of the more impactful improvements. What was > > the reason for leaving that out? > > If you read my previous email: > > > For the above two items, I mention items that would change user > > like new features or changes that are significant enough that they would > > change user behavior. For example, if a new join method increases > > performance by 5x, that could change user behavior. Based on the quoted > > numbers above, I didn't think "hash now faster" would be appropriate to > > mention. Right?
I continue, as in past releases, to think that this is a bad policy. For existing workloads performance improvements are commonly a more convincing reason to upgrade than new features - they allow users to scale the workload further, without needing application changes. Of course there are performance improvement that are too miniscule to be worth mentioning, but it's not a common case. And here it's not just performance, but also memory usage, including steady state memory usage. > I can see this item as a big win, but I don't know how to describe it in a way > that is helpful for the user to know. In doubt the subject of the commit would just work IMO. Greetings, Andres Freund