On 5/6/24 5:08 PM, David Rowley wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 05:44, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:Please provide feedback no later (and preferably sooner) than 2024-05-09 12:00 UTC.Thanks for the draft. Here's some feedback.* Fix [`INSERT`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-insert.html) from multiple [`VALUES`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-values.html) rows into a target column that is a domain over an array or composite type. including requiring the [SELECT privilege](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-grant.html) on the target table when using [`MERGE`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-merge.html) when using `MERGE ... DO NOTHING`.Something looks wrong with the above. Are two separate items merged into one? 52898c63e and a3f5d2056?
Ugh, I see what happened. I was originally planning to combine them, and then had one be the lede, then the other. Given I ended up consolidating quite a bit, I'll just have them each stand on their own. I'll fix this in the next draft (which I'll upload on my Tuesday).
* Fix confusion for SQL-language procedures that returns a single composite-type column.Should "returns" be singular here?
Fixed.
* Throw an error if an index is accessed while it is being reindexed.I know you want to keep these short and I understand the above is the same wording from release notes, but these words sound like a terrible oversite that we allow any concurrent query to still use the table while a reindex is in progress.
Yeah, I was not happy with this one at all. Maybe we should give more detail
there so people don't think we made such a silly mistake. The release note version I think does have enough words to allow the reader to understand that the mistake is more complex. Maybe we could add something here to make it sound like less of an embarrassing mistake?
Based on this, I'd vote to just remove it from the release announcement. Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
