On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:07:25AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 06:28:49PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 3:03 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > > > I have committed the first draft of the PG 14 release notes. You can > > > see the most current build of them here: > > > > > > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-14.html > > > > I think we need to mention in the release note that > > vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor GUC parameter has been removed and > > vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor storage parameter has been > > deprecated (please refer to commit 9f3665fb and effdd3f3b63). > > Looking at the full commit message: > > commit 9f3665fbfc > Author: Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> > Date: Wed Mar 10 16:27:01 2021 -0800 > > Don't consider newly inserted tuples in nbtree VACUUM. > > Remove the entire idea of "stale stats" within nbtree VACUUM (stop > caring about stats involving the number of inserted tuples). Also > remove the vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor GUC/param on the master > branch (though just disable them on postgres 13).
> This was backpatched into PG 13.3, which was released last week: > remove the stale-statistics logic. The control parameter for > that, > <varname>vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor</varname>, will be > removed entirely in v14. In v13, it remains present to avoid > breaking existing configuration files, but it no longer does > anything. > </para> > </listitem> > > Therefore, it didn't show up in my src/tools/git_changelog output, and I > did not include it. Normally, stuff that was backpatched isn't included in major release notes, since the change would/could normally happen during a minor -> minor+1 release. As things stand, in this case I think it *should* be included, since the backpatched change isn't the same as the change to HEAD (removing the GUC). The git_changelog output might well be wrong in this case (or, arguably, the "remove the GUC entirely" should've been a separate master-only commit than the "make the GUC do nothing" commit). However, Peter indicated an intent to add a reloption to disable the vacuum optimization, so maybe the removal of the GUC could be documented at that time. -- Justin
