On Mon, May  1, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm pretty sure this is not the first year in which your policy of
> excluding certain performance-related items has met with opposition.
> I agree that there are some improvements that are sufficiently small
> and boring that they do not merit a mention, but (1) that's also true
> of non-performance items and (2) the fact that people keep complaining
> about performance items you excluded constitutes a discussion of
> changing your filter.
> My own opinion is that the filter should not be particularly different
> for performance items vs. non-performance.  The question ought to be
> whether the change is significant enough that users are likely to
> care.  If you've got several people saying "hey, you forgot NNNNNN in
> the release notes!" it is probably a good bet that the change is
> significant enough that users will care about it.

Yes, the "do people care" filter is what I usually use.  When new
functionality is added, we usually mention it because someone usually
care, but for performance, the threshold is usually whether workloads,
even rare ones, would have a visible performance change.  It is
difficult to determine this from the release notes, which is why I
always need feedback on these items.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to