On 2/7/17 9:37 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday:
Thanks for the work on this!
11 There existed a race condition if CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was
called on a column that had not been indexed before, then rows that were
updated by transactions running at the same time as the CREATE INDEX
CONCURRENTLY command could have been indexed incorrectly.
I think that'd read better as
11 There existed a race condition /where/ if CREATE INDEX
CONCURRENTLY was called on a column that had not been indexed before,
then rows that were updated by transactions running at the same time as
the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY command /may not/ have been indexed
incorrectly.
Also, maybe we should mention that there's no way to test for this, and
make a stronger suggestion to redo any affected indexes?
20 These release contains several fixes to improve the stability of
visible data and WAL logging that we wish to highlight here.
I think this sentence can just go. If we want to keep it, IMHO this is a
better alternative: "This release contains several improvements to the
stability of data visibility and WAL logging."
22 Prior to this release, data could be prematurely pruned by a
vacuum operation when a special snapshot used for catalog scans was
presently available.
... vacuum operation even though a special catalog scan snapshot was in use.
BTW, I don't know what came out of the discussion of git references in
release notes, but I'd find it useful to be able to at least get a
complete list. Not hard for me to do that since I know git and our
naming scheme, but maybe we should include directions for doing so?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
