Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/22/2012 01:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: Andrew, Below is the patch that I mentioned at pgOpen. I'm pretty sure my silly github pull request got screwed up anyway, so probably best to ignore it. Regardless, please let me know what you think. I'd be happy to rework it to opera

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Andrew, Below is the patch that I mentioned at pgOpen. I'm pretty sure my silly github pull request got screwed up anyway, so probably best to ignore it. Regardless, please let me know what you think. I'd be happy to rework it to operate off of a single hash, though I think that would

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:27:49AM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 09/10/2012 05:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc > >>> build in the past; maybe I need t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/10/2012 05:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc >>> build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. >> >> You keep threatening with that. You

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:19:00AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc > > > build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. > > > > You keep th

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc > > build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. > > You keep threatening with that. You are free, of course, to do anything > you want,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun sep 10 11:55:58 -0300 2012: > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > why would we want to publish docs for something that fails to build > > and/or fails to pass regression testing - to me code and the docs for it > >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely > >>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/07/2012 06:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/07/2012 09:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan >> wrote: >>> >>> A complete run of this process takes less than 15 minutes. And as I have >>> pointed out elsewhere that could be reduced substantial

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/06/2012 03:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:33:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 20

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely >>> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it >>> used to work. What's being proposed now just sou

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie sep 07 13:50:44 -0300 2012: > There is a filter mechanism used in detecting is a run is needed, and in > modern versions of the client (Release 4.7, one version later than > guaibasaurus is currently using) it lets you have both include and > exclud

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/07/2012 09:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: A complete run of this process takes less than 15 minutes. And as I have pointed out elsewhere that could be reduced substantially by skipping certain steps. It's as simple as changing the com

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/05/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely set up a script that just runs the docs build at e

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of jue sep 06 00:33:35 -0300 2012: > > On 09/05/2012 11:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > > Now that you've provided the magic sauce wrt --skip-steps, can we get an > > admin to implement a doc-only build that ru

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/05/2012 11:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: You mean in my copious spare time? If you're alright with the concept, then anyone can do it. I was looking more for your concurrence on the idea of documenting this explicitly (which also implies that

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > You mean in my copious spare time? If you're alright with the concept, then anyone can do it. I was looking more for your concurrence on the idea of documenting this explicitly (which also implies that it'll be supported, etc). I'd be happy to deve

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/05/2012 11:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: The buildfarm code does not run if there are no changes. The job runs, sees that there are no changes, and exits. Right, hence it makes great sense to use it for this (as opposed to Bruce's previous scri

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > The buildfarm code does not run if there are no changes. The job > runs, sees that there are no changes, and exits. Right, hence it makes great sense to use it for this (as opposed to Bruce's previous script or some other new one). While it might ap

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/05/2012 09:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: How often do you want? After all, is presumably going to keep pointing to where it now points. Well, the old code checked every five minutes, and it

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:59:50PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > > How often do you want? After all, > > > is > > > presumably going to keep pointing to where it now points. > > > > Well, the o

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > How often do you want? After all, > > is > > presumably going to keep pointing to where it now points. > > Well, the old code checked every five minutes, and it rebuilt in 4 > minutes, so there

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:33:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012: > >>>Andrew Dunstan writes: > The only re

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 06:32:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Correct. I have always had a working SGML toolset. If we are not going > > to have the developer site run more often, I will just go back to > > setting up my own public doc build, like I used to do. I removed mine > > when the

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012: Andrew Dunstan writes: The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators have chosen not to r

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

> Correct. I have always had a working SGML toolset. If we are not going > to have the developer site run more often, I will just go back to > setting up my own public doc build, like I used to do. I removed mine > when the official one was more current/reliable --- if that has changed, > I wil

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012: > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > > The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators > > > have chosen not to run the process more than once ev

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators > > have chosen not to run the process more than once every 4 hours. That's > > a choice not dictated by the process they are u

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Andrew Dunstan writes: > The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators > have chosen not to run the process more than once every 4 hours. That's > a choice not dictated by the process they are using, but by other > considerations concerning the machine it's being run o

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 09/05/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely >> set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it >> used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a lot of >> complication for little or no a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 22:23 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > > > Where are we on building the development docs more frequently? >> > > >> > > Still waiting for details on how it works to set that up on the >> > > buildfarm client. >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 08/29/2012 11:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 22:23 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Where are we on building the development docs more frequently? Still waiting for details on how it works to set that up on the buildfarm client. Where are we on this? Waiting on Andrew.

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 22:23 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Where are we on building the development docs more frequently? > > > > > > Still waiting for details on how it works to set that up on the > > > buildfarm client. > > > > Where are we on this? > > Waiting on Andrew. > > As far as

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mié ago 29 21:25:11 -0400 2012: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:58:58PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:58:58PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On 05/11/2012 05:32

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> But in the interest of actually being

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> > >> > >> But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the > >> usecase for needing a 5 minute

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 5/24/12 2:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely >>> advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit "group commit" in >>> release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new f

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 24 May 2012 22:57, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, item moved down.  We have not have "bug fix" designation.  You have > > a suggestion? > > I assumed you were going to put it beside the other compatibility note > relating to pg_s

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 24 May 2012 22:57, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, item moved down.  We have not have "bug fix" designation.  You have > a suggestion? I assumed you were going to put it beside the other compatibility note relating to pg_stat_statements, "Change pg_stat_statements' total_time column to be measured

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:34:22PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > In passing, I noticed this: > > """ > E.1.3.12.2. pg_stat_statements > > Improve pg_stat_statements to aggregate similar queries (Peter > Geoghegan, Tom Lane) > > Improve pg_stat_statements' handling of PREPARE/EXECUTE statements

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely >> advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit "group commit" in >> release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature. > > First, shouldn't we be having this di

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:38:06AM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > "Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees > with >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > "Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees > with > > less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas, > Kevin > > G

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:49:25PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 16.05.2012 22:38, Jeff Janes wrote: > >For item: > >Improve COPY performance by adding tuples to the heap in batches > >(Heikki Linnakangas) > > > >I think we should point out that the batching only applies for COPY > >into un

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > "Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees with > less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas, Kevin > Grittner)" > Is this note about following two commits? > http://git.p

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:30:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I will make the adjustments outlined below as soon as I can. Done and committed. --- > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:37:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > O

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to >> git. > > Concerning "Have psql \copy use libpq's SendQuery()", SendQuery() is a > psql-internal interfac

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > git. Concerning "Have psql \copy use libpq's SendQuery()", SendQuery() is a psql-internal interface, not a libpq interface. The array statistics patch added n

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

> For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely > advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit "group commit" in > release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature. First, shouldn't we be having this discussion on -advocacy? To date, I've been callin

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

I will make the adjustments outlined below as soon as I can. --- On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:37:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > > On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wr

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 16.05.2012 22:38, Jeff Janes wrote: For item: Improve COPY performance by adding tuples to the heap in batches (Heikki Linnakangas) I think we should point out that the batching only applies for COPY into unindexed tables. Nice as the feature is, that is pretty big limitation not to mention.

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > git.  I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40 > minutes, I am still waiting: > >         > http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 15 May 2012 17:51, Robert Haas wrote: > More accurately, he seems to have thought that group commit was > already there, and he'd improved it.  So saying that we're getting it > for the first time ten years later seems pretty odd to me. Maybe it's odd, and maybe it's inconsistent with earlier

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 > I'd vote for starting a separate thread to solicit people's opinions > on whether we need names in the release notes. Is there anybody on > -hackers who would be offended, or would have a harder time persuading > $BOSS to let them spend time

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Bruce wrote: > In summary, names on release note items potentially have the > following beneficial effects: > > * Encouraging new developers/reviewers > * Encouraging long-established developers > * Showing appreciation to developers > * As

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> >> But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the >> usecase for needing a 5 minute turnaround time? I don't buy the "check >> what a patch looks like", because that

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > The mere ability to notice that an XLogFlush() call is unnecessary and > fastpath out could be argued to be an aboriginal group commit, > predating even commit_delay, as could skipping duplicate fsync() > requests in XLogWrite(), which I th

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > git. The beta release announcement is on postgresql.org with a direct link to the release notes. The notes lead off with: NARRATIVE HERE. Major enhancements include:

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> This is the git commit message: >> >>    Make group commit more effective. >> >>    When a backend needs to flush the WAL, and someone else is already >> flushing >>    the WAL, wait u

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 14 May 2012 17:06, Bruce Momjian wrote: > So this group commit happens > even if users don't change these? > >        #commit_delay = 0           # range 0-10, in microseconds >        #commit_siblings = 5            # range 1-1000 Yes, that's right - the new group commit is not configurab

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 09:01:03PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Right.  It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement.  We've >> > had group commit for a long time; it just didn't wo

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On May 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > So the new release item wording will be: > >Add group commit capability for sessions that commit at the same >time > > This is the git commit message: > >Make group commit more effective. > >When a backend needs to flush t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 09:01:03PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas wrote: > > Right.  It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement.  We've > > had group commit for a long time; it just didn't work very well > > before.  And it's not batching the commits

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas wrote: > Right.  It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement.  We've > had group commit for a long time; it just didn't work very well > before.  And it's not batching the commits better; it's reducing the > lock contention around realizing that the bat

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> How many names on a single item is ideal?  The activity of reviewers and >> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of >> potential names per item. >> > Main authors only. Re

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:11:49PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and > > their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of > > potential names per item. > > > Main aut

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and > their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of > potential names per item. > Main authors only. Reviewers should be mentioned only in the commit log. If I coded

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

In summary, names on release note items potentially have the following beneficial effects: * Encouraging new developers/reviewers * Encouraging long-established developers * Showing appreciation to developers * Assisting future employment for developers * Helping developers get future funding

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:37:58PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> > >>> Why can't we call group commit group commit

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >>> Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter, >>> index-only scans index-only scans), so that

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On fre, 2012-05-11 at 11:32 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > You are misinterpreting this. The reason Bruce's link was removed was > > that the other (official) build was set to run at the same frequency, so > > Bruce's build was exactly redundant. The requirement/aspiration to have > > a few mi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter, >> index-only scans index-only scans), so that people will understand >> that we are now competitive with

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the usecase for needing a 5 minute turnaround time? I don't buy the "check what a patch looks like", because that should be done *before* the commit, not after - so it's best verified by

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Bruce Momjian writes: > Let me add that I am concerned about the lack of objectivity in many of > the suggestions in this thread. This has prompted me to think that the > temptation of having names on these release note items is just too > great, and that the names should be removed. Er, what?

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/11/2012 10:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:01:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote: On May 10, 2

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:01:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote: > > >>On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dun

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote: > >>On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>>On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > How about a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote: On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names attached

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote: > On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is > >> with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Le jeudi 10 mai 2012 22:18:30, Alvaro Herrera a écrit : > It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as > found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a > second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as > proposed by Andrew? Then the do

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On fre, 2012-05-11 at 09:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> If people want the main docs building more often th

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On fre, 2012-05-11 at 09:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> If people want the main docs building more often that's not really a > >> problem other than time - we just need t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> If people want the main docs building more often that's not really a >> problem other than time - we just need to decouple it from the >> buildfarm and run a separate job for it.

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is >> with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a >> separate section "Other Contributors" to recogni

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a separate section "Other Contributors" to recognize patch reviewers and other helpers? works for me. che

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:16:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got > > credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no > > credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security vi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

> The other problem with such an approach is that section (1) would be > extremely duplicative of the main release-notes text. How about a > hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names > attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a separate > section "

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Josh Berkus writes: >> It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as >> found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a >> second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as >> proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no names at all,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

> It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as > found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a > second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as > proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no names at all, and > credit would be gi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:51:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Not sure where to move that to.  Source Code doesn't seem right.  I > > moved it lower in the performance section. > > I'd just delete it. Instead, under index-only scans, I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue may 10 16:07:33 -0400 2012: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the > > contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list > > features on a t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Robert Haas writes: > Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got > credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no > credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views > and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and similarly for other p

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the > contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list > features on a time basis. So if I (for example) want to put on my resume > that I contributed a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> As a general comment, I think that your new policy of crediting the >> reviewer on every feature except when that reviewer is also a >> committer has produced a horrific mess. > I assumed reviewers mentioned i

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 02:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Then reviewers should be removed. I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that. Are you disagreeing with Bruce's p

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and >>> to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for givin

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Then reviewers should be removed. >>> >>> I disagree.  We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to >>> do more reviewing.  Giving credit is a big part of that. >> >> Are you disagreeing with Bruce's premise, my logic, or the co

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

"Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees with less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas, Kevin Grittner)" Is this note about following two commits? http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7f3bd86843e5aad84585a57d

  1   2   >