Re: First-draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-11-09 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Tom Lane wrote: > > See > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=1add2e09b9a4c2d2c72ce51991fa4efaf577a29f > > Please send any corrections by Sunday. > I have read it once and didn't find any obvious errors. -- With Regards, Amit Kapil

First-draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-11-08 Thread Tom Lane
See https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=1add2e09b9a4c2d2c72ce51991fa4efaf577a29f Please send any corrections by Sunday. regards, tom lane

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 06:05:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> I agree that this isn't terribly significant in general. Your proposed > >> wording seems better than what we have now, but a reference to INCLUD

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Thanks for the input, guys. What do you think of > > Avoid writing an invalid empty btree index page in the unlikely case > that a failure occurs while processing INCLUDEd columns during a page > split (Peter Geoghegan) > > The

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch writes: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I agree that this isn't terribly significant in general. Your proposed >> wording seems better than what we have now, but a reference to INCLUDE >> indexes also seems like a good idea. They are the only type o

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch wrote: > > To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading > > the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM > > doesn't start fai

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 2:11 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch wrote: > > To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading > > the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM > > doesn't start failing pers

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:39 PM Noah Misch wrote: > To me, this text implies a cautious DBA should amcheck every index. Reading > the thread[1], I no longer think that. It's enough to monitor that VACUUM > doesn't start failing persistently on any index. I suggest replacing this > release note

Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-15 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:58:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=0995cefa74510ee0e38d1bf095b2eef2c1ea37c4 > + > + > + Avoid corruption of a btree index in the unlikely case that a failure > + occurs during key truncation

Draft back-branch release notes are up for review

2019-06-14 Thread Tom Lane
I've committed first-draft release notes for next week's releases at https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=0995cefa74510ee0e38d1bf095b2eef2c1ea37c4 Please send any review comments by Sunday. regards, tom lane