Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

Simon Riggs writes: > Which is why next year when upgrading from PG10 -> PG11 we will > mention it and that point not mention the other older solutions, which > were once our best. This is boilerplate text that we tend to copy-and-paste without thinking about it; if it's designed in a way that re

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

On 4 September 2017 at 12:11, Robert Haas wrote: > > It's not really true that the only alternatives to pglogical are > proprietary. Really, one could use any logical replication solution, > and there have been multiple open source alternatives for a decade. True, but it is by far the best solut

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

On 4 September 2017 at 10:34, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > I'd like at big red warning "Logical decoding doesn't support Large Objects" > in that case; > > "If upgrading from a 9.4 server or later, and you don't use Large Objects, > external utilities using logical decoding, such as pglogical or

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

On 4 September 2017 at 12:39, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I agree that singling it out there is probably not the best idea. But a >> sentence/paragraph saying that there are third party replication solutions >> that can solve the problem, along w

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I agree that singling it out there is probably not the best idea. But a > sentence/paragraph saying that there are third party replication solutions > that can solve the problem, along with linking to the page with the list, > perhaps? Yeah

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Migration to Version 10 > > > > "A dump/restore using pg_dumpall, or use of pg_upgrade, is required > > for those wishing to migrate data from any previous release." > > > > This isn't tru

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Migration to Version 10 > > "A dump/restore using pg_dumpall, or use of pg_upgrade, is required > for those wishing to migrate data from any previous release." > > This isn't true and is seriously misleading ... Fair point. > since pglogical a

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note changes

På mandag 04. september 2017 kl. 10:49:40, skrev Simon Riggs < si...@2ndquadrant.com >: Migration to Version 10 "A dump/restore using pg_dumpall, or use of pg_upgrade, is required for those wishing to migrate data from any previous release." This isn't true and is

[HACKERS] Release Note changes

Migration to Version 10 "A dump/restore using pg_dumpall, or use of pg_upgrade, is required for those wishing to migrate data from any previous release." This isn't true and is seriously misleading since pglogical and other proprietary tools exist that were designed specifically to allow this. Su

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Pavan Deolasee wrote: > One of the improvements of HOT is to truncate a DEAD tuple to its > line pointer. A DEAD tuple could be an old version of an updated > tuple or a deleted tuple. When a tuple is truncated, the space used > by the line pointer can not be reused (until the index entries are rem

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Dec 10, 2007 6:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree completely. HOT updates is just one significant benefit of > > HOT and is constrained by the non-index column updates. But the other > > major benefit of truncating

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: Ah, glad you asked. It is now in the release note introduction that I added as part of this discussion: http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/release-introduction.html I realize it wasn't documented but the issue was always open for discussion, as you have see

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:40:52 -0500 (EST) > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > By trying to make one developer happy I have made two unhappy. > > I have removed Stefan Kaltenbrunner's name from that item. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 > PostgreSQL two for the price of one. Postgre *and* SQL? :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] The first Postgres "Greg" (3 and counting now...) PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200712101856 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:40:52 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By trying to make one developer happy I have made two unhappy. > I have remved Stefan Kaltenbrunner's name from that item. > > Basically I should have expected this b

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Tom Lane wrote: > Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> That is an excellent suggestion, done: > >> > >> Full text search is integrated into the core database > >> system (Teodor, Oleg, Stefan Kaltenbrunner) > > > Wait, I think we need more w

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Release note introduction attached and applied. --- bruce wrote: > Based on this discussion I think it is clear the release notes chapter > needs an introductory section. This would not be for any specific > release but the

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:56:01 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> That is an excellent suggestion, done: > >> > >> Full text search is integrated into

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Oleg Bartunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> That is an excellent suggestion, done: >> >> Full text search is integrated into the core database >> system (Teodor, Oleg, Stefan Kaltenbrunner) > Wait, I think we need more words about original authors ! I

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:26:11 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom and you disagreed. I understand the reasoning and I don't > > actually disagree with the thought process but I think the thought > > process is flawed. I do not

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:16:12 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kris Jurka wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original > > > patch th

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote: Kris Jurka wrote: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original patch that didn't get done. Stefan picked up the ball and ran with it and produced something that will make our product m

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution. > >>> Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_ > >>> changes? > >>> > >> Hmmm go

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > We even have two Gavins. However I think we will truly reach the point > > > of no return with we have two Heikkis. Once we have two Heikkis it will > > > be obvious to anyone that we are the World's most globally d

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Kris Jurka wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original patch > > that didn't get done. Stefan picked up the ball and ran with it and > > produced something that will make our product more usable for the end >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:13:58 -0300 Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > We even have two Gavins. However I think we will truly reach the > > > point of no return with we have two Heikk

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > We even have two Gavins. However I think we will truly reach the point > > of no return with we have two Heikkis. Once we have two Heikkis it will > > be obvious to anyone that we are the World's most globally developed > > advanced Open Source

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Gregory Stark wrote: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> When Tom Lockhart was around the project it was even messier, since he and I >> shared not only the same first name but all three initials. > > Then there's Greg Stark, Greg Smith, and Greg Sabino (Mullane). > > Perhaps we should

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > We even have two Gavins. However I think we will truly reach the point > of no return with we have two Heikkis. Once we have two Heikkis it will > be obvious to anyone that we are the World's most globally developed > advanced Open Source database. Hey, we have two Hirosh

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:12:54 + Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > When Tom Lockhart was around the project it was even messier, since > > he and I shared not only the same first name but all

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:14:58 -0500 (EST) Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original > > patch that didn't get done. Stefan picked u

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 3. It was grunt work that should have been done with the original patch that didn't get done. Stefan picked up the ball and ran with it and produced something that will make our product more usable for the end user. Then why not list Stefan as a

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yeah, laziness on the part of those preparing the release notes is certainly a factor ;-). Anyway, maybe a policy of "drop the last name on second and later mentions, unless this might cause confusion" would work. You've probably written more in this thr

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution. Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_ changes? Hmmm good question which gets back to where we started :). My very fir

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When Tom Lockhart was around the project it was even messier, since he and I > shared not only the same first name but all three initials. Then there's Greg Stark, Greg Smith, and Greg Sabino (Mullane). Perhaps we should just go by uid. -- Gregory St

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dave Page wrote: That's inaccurate - I've been listed by full name for at least the last 3 or 4 releases. I realise I'm not the biggest contributor to the core code, but 'newer' certainly isn't right. Maybe

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dave Page wrote: >> That's inaccurate - I've been listed by full name for at least the last 3 or >> 4 releases. I realise I'm not the biggest contributor to the core code, but >> 'newer' certainly isn't right. > Maybe that's because you have such

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Le lundi 10 décembre 2007, Bruce Momjian a écrit : > > http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git > > http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git?a=shortlog;h=master > > http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git?a=shortlog;h=REL8_2_STABLE > > I like the branch option but I don't like the title being duplicated as >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Pavan Deolasee wrote: On Dec 8, 2007 3:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I still think this needs to be qualified either way. As it stands it's quite misleading. Man

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> David != Dave > > Yea, but that is so subtle that is seems too error-prone. I think you missed the smiley. It doesn't bother me if I'm named in full or not, just that the introduction is accurate - which you've already fixed. /D ---

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Dave Page wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Dave Page wrote: > First-name-only > entries represent established developers, while full names represent > newer contributors. > >>> That's inaccurate - I've been listed by full name for at least the last

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: First-name-only entries represent established developers, while full names represent newer contributors. >>> That's inaccurate - I've been listed by full name for at least the last 3 >>> or 4 releases. I rea

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >> I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution. > > > > Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_ > > changes? > > > > Hmmm good question which gets back to where we started :). My

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> First-name-only > >>entries represent established developers, while full names represent > >>newer contributors. > > > > That's inaccurate - I've been listed by full name for at least the last 3 > > or 4 releases. I realise I'm not the bi

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Dimitri Fontaine wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > Hi, > > Le lundi 10 d?cembre 2007, Bruce Momjian a ?crit?: > > Based on this discussion I think it is clear the release notes chapter > > needs an introductory section. This would not be for any specific > > release but the release notes i

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Brendan Jurd wrote: > On Dec 10, 2007 10:39 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I like the realease notes intro. You may have already picked up on > these, but a couple typos: > > > A names appearing next to an item represents the major developer for > > that item.

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Dave Page wrote: First-name-only entries represent established developers, while full names represent newer contributors. That's inaccurate - I've been listed by full name for at least the last 3 or 4 releases. I realise I'm not the biggest contributor to the core code, but '

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Hi, Le lundi 10 décembre 2007, Bruce Momjian a écrit : > Based on this discussion I think it is clear the release notes chapter > needs an introductory section. This would not be for any specific > release but the release notes in general. Excellent idea, IMHO. > I need help with the CVS sectio

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

> --- Original Message --- > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 09/12/07, 23:39:55 > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes > > First-name-only > entries represent established de

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Dec 8, 2007 3:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > I still think this needs to be qualified either way. As it stands > it's > quite misleading. Many update scenarios will not benefit one whit > from > HOT upda

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Dec 10, 2007 10:39 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I like the realease notes intro. You may have already picked up on these, but a couple typos: > A names appearing next to an item represents the major developer for > that item. Of course all changes involve comm

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: I assumed the white paper would have proper attribution. Right, but is the white paper going to be thorough to mention _all_ changes? Hmmm good question which gets back to where we started :). My very first thought on all of this was that we wo

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Based on this discussion I think it is clear the release notes chapter needs an introductory section. This would not be for any specific release but the release notes in general. I have come up with the following text: The release notes contain the significant changes for each PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> However as a user I find it helpful to get a kind of overview of the > >>> kinds of > >>> invisible changes there were so I can get a feel for the magnitude of the > >>> improvements between versions. > >>> > >> I agree

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: However as a user I find it helpful to get a kind of overview of the kinds of invisible changes there were so I can get a feel for the magnitude of the improvements between versions. I agree with this as well. However, I am starting to wonder if the

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > However as a user I find it helpful to get a kind of overview of the kinds > > of > > invisible changes there were so I can get a feel for the magnitude of the > > improvements between versions. > > > > I agree with this as well. However, I am starting to wonder if the

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Gregory Stark wrote: > I understand the thinking but I disagree that "various optimizations speeding > up merge sort, reducing contention at transaction start and end, ..." is > entirely content-free. I agree that nobody is really going to be specifically > saying "gee, i wish we could use postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Gregory Stark wrote: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Note that I am not arguing one way or the other, but I find the distinction between a individual who is a contributor and a company that is a contributor interesting. Individual mentions are only so we k

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Note that I am not arguing one way or the other, but I find the >> distinction between a individual who is a contributor and a company that >> is a contributor interesting. > > Individual mentions are only so we know who

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > I am actually a little worried that companies who sponsor developers > > > might some day want their company name on the release note item. I am > > > glad we have not had to make that decision yet. This actually > > > > O.k. I will bite :

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Yeah, I don't know when did that start but I would prefer that the names > would be spelled in full. On the other hand, having a first name only > is a kind of a sign that you're already an established developer. Still > I would like my last name to be there and I was cons

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > I am actually a little worried that companies who sponsor developers > > might some day want their company name on the release note item. I am > > glad we have not had to make that decision yet. This actually > > O.k. I will bite :) > > > > highlights a danger of

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 10:13 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > If I had had no credit, I wouldn't have a job. > > Agree with this 100% > > > > I don't have a problem with mentioning sponsoring companies on the > bottom of the release notes. I think it will encourage wider spo

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 10:13 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > If I had had no credit, I wouldn't have a job. Agree with this 100% I don't have a problem with mentioning sponsoring companies on the bottom of the release notes. I think it will encourage wider sponsorship if people do that. Probably

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 12:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Simon's the guy who (rightfully, IMHO) smacked me for forgetting to > > credit him on a commit message. Credit is important to some people. > > Let's not get in the business of annoying the people who gives their >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Alternatively we could use the contributors list (currently developers > > list) as the definitive source and just provide a link. > > I think that's a bad idea, because it doesn't keep historical > information. Furthermore it seems ina

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Yeah. In my opinion, we're not really looking for 100% fairness. I >> think credit is important, so if Stefan Kaltenbrunner did some psql >> autocomplete work and it's not attributed, let's add a note to that >> effect. There is no point in say

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Alvaro Herrera wrote: Yeah. In my opinion, we're not really looking for 100% fairness. I think credit is important, so if Stefan Kaltenbrunner did some psql autocomplete work and it's not attributed, let's add a note to that effect. There is no point in saying exactly how many lines he contri

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > I don't think people are going to volunteer to remove just their name > but they might agree to remove them all. As a contributor I personally > would have no problem with that. I would. > I am actually a little worried that companies who sponsor developers > might some d

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

I am actually a little worried that companies who sponsor developers might some day want their company name on the release note item. I am glad we have not had to make that decision yet. This actually O.k. I will bite :) highlights a danger of having "giving credit" be a more major part o

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon's the guy who (rightfully, IMHO) smacked me for forgetting to > credit him on a commit message. Credit is important to some people. > Let's not get in the business of annoying the people who gives their > work for free. For some, credit is the second sole reason for

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Dec 8, 2007 3:37 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you want to collect all the optimizer items for 8.3 and put them in a > > list we can link to them from the web site. > > Perhaps we can find a compromise by adding a global item on the > optimizer enha

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 16:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > If people are concerned about the unfairness, and I understand that, > > > > > the > > > > > best solution is not to add more items to the release notes to be more > > > > > fair, but t

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Dec 8, 2007 3:37 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to collect all the optimizer items for 8.3 and put them in a > list we can link to them from the web site. Perhaps we can find a compromise by adding a global item on the optimizer enhancements with the names of people

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Let me give you the criteria I use for the release notes. The release > notes try to document all changes visible to the average user in a way > that is understandable to the av

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 16:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Maybe the importance of the patches that were removed wasn't clear > > > enough, so let me explain my viewpoint. On another part of this thread I > > > summarised the feedback from others to a

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > >>> Let me give you the criteria I use for the release notes. The release > >>> notes try to document all changes visible to the average user in a way > >>> that is understandable to the average user. > >> hmm I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 16:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Maybe the importance of the patches that were removed wasn't clear > > > enough, so let me explain my viewpoint. On another part of this thread I > > > summarised the feedback from others to a

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>> Let me give you the criteria I use for the release notes. The release >>> notes try to document all changes visible to the average user in a way >>> that is understandable to the average user. >> hmm I'm not so sure about that - there are a nu

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 16:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > Maybe the importance of the patches that were removed wasn't clear > > enough, so let me explain my viewpoint. On another part of this thread I > > summarised the feedback from others to a list of features that were >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: I still think this needs to be qualified either way. As it stands it's quite misleading. Many update scenarios will not benefit one whit from HOT updates. Doesn't the detail description qualify it enought? The heading isn't suppose

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > Let me give you the criteria I use for the release notes. The release > > notes try to document all changes visible to the average user in a way > > that is understandable to the average user. > > hmm I'm not so sure about that - there are a number of changes to ps

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > [ Sorry for my delay in replying to this.] > >> Few proposals >> >> - Can we say "smoothed" rather than "distributed" checkpoints? >> "Smoothed checkpoints greatly reduce checkpoint I/O spikes" > > Agreed. Changed. > >> - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) acc

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> I still think this needs to be qualified either way. As it stands it's > >> quite misleading. Many update scenarios will not benefit one whit from > >> HOT updates. > >> > > > > Doesn't the detail description qualify it enought? The heading isn't > > suppose to ha

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:33 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:49 +, Gregory Stark wrote: > > > > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > If people understand there aren't 13 performance improvements there

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) accelerate space reuse for UPDATEs change to "Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) improve performance of frequent UPDATEs" I used the original text because it tries to explain _how_ HO

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:33 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:49 +, Gregory Stark wrote: > > > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > If people understand there aren't 13 performance improvements there are > > > > at *least* 19+ that

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:47:22 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is true we don't have a tracker but I have not seen a major demand > for it, Are you kidding? > or at least not enough for someone to actually do the work > requi

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >> - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) accelerate space reuse for UPDATEs > >> change to > >> "Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) improve performance of frequent UPDATEs" > >> > > > > I used the original text because it tries to explain _how_ HOT improves >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Josh Berkus wrote: > Greg, > > > Frankly I think the release notes are already too long. People who judge a > > release by counting the number of items in the release notes are not worth > > appeasing. Including every individual lock removed or code path optimized > > will only obscure the importa

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) accelerate space reuse for UPDATEs > > change to > > "Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) improve performance of frequent UPDATEs" > > > > > > > > I think we need to qualify this, or it could be quite misleading. > perhaps ad

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:49 +, Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > If people understand there aren't 13 performance improvements there are > > > at *least* 19+ that is a positive message to help people decide to > > > upgrade. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Bruce Momjian wrote: - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) accelerate space reuse for UPDATEs change to "Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) improve performance of frequent UPDATEs" I used the original text because it tries to explain _how_ HOT improves performance. The item that has the descriptive text expl

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Usama Dar wrote: > i agree that release notes should not be too long, but may be there should > be (if there isn't one already) something like a "change log" where people > can find out all the changes done from the previous release, if they are > intrested ? Right now only the CVS logs provide mo

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 06:31 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I also notice that two performance features have disappeared from the > > release notes. (Presumably they have been removed from source). Both of > > them have changes that can be seen by users, so can't see why we wo

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Simon Riggs wrote: [ Sorry for my delay in replying to this.] > Few proposals > > - Can we say "smoothed" rather than "distributed" checkpoints? > "Smoothed checkpoints greatly reduce checkpoint I/O spikes" Agreed. Changed. > - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) accelerate space reuse for UPDATEs > chang

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > FWIW, I tend to agree with the folks who think Bruce trimmed too much > this time. But the release notes are, and always have been, intended to > boil the CVS history down to something useful by eliminating irrelevant > detail. OK, so given e

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:32:10 -0500 Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > - Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) accelerate space reuse for UPDATEs > > change to > > "Heap-Only Tuples (HOT) improve performance of frequent UPDATEs" > > > > > > > > I think we need to qual

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

Josh Berkus wrote: This might be worth mentioning, since it can be quite a big difference in the right circumstances, and it helps a bit with the scalability problem of the recovery. Should mention that it only helps with full_pages_writes=on. One more reason to not gamble with data integrity ;-)

Re: [HACKERS] Release Note Changes

On Nov 30, 2007 11:07 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I disagree. For people who want a quick summary of the major > user-facing > > things changed we'll have multiple sources: (a) the announcement, (b) > the > > press features list, (c) the

  1   2   >