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
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
... 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
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: