Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Tom Lane wrote: > Jonathan Katz writes: > > I see this one > > > Fix potential data corruption when freezing a tuple whose XMAX is a > > multixact with exactly one still-interesting member > > But I’m unsure how prevalent it is and if it should be highlighted. > > I'm not sure about that eit

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

> On Aug 5, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Jonathan Katz writes: >> I see this one >> > Fix potential data corruption when freezing a tuple whose XMAX is a >> multixact with exactly one still-interesting member >> But I’m unsure how prevalent it is and if it should be highlighted.

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Andres Freund writes: > I just pushed a 9.4 specific bugfix. Do you want me to fix up the > release notes after you backpatch the minor release to 9.4, or what's > the best process? No sweat, I'll incorporate it when I do the further-back-branch notes tomorrow. regards, t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Hi Tom, On 2017-08-04 18:41:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I've committed the first-draft release notes for 9.6.4 at > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/03378c4da598840b0520a53580dd7713c95f21c8 I just pushed a 9.4 specific bugfix. Do you want me to fix up the release notes after you backpatch

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Jonathan Katz writes: > I see this one > > Fix potential data corruption when freezing a tuple whose XMAX is a > multixact with exactly one still-interesting member > But I’m unsure how prevalent it is and if it should be highlighted. I'm not sure about that either. I do not think anyone

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Hi Tom, > On Aug 4, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I've committed the first-draft release notes for 9.6.4 at > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/03378c4da598840b0520a53580dd7713c95f21c8 > > (If you prefer to read nicely-marked-up copy, they should be up at > https://www.postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 06/05/17 19:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> On 06/05/17 19:15, Tom Lane wrote: >>> (Or, wait a minute. That documentation only applies to v10, but we >>> need to be writing this relnote for 9.6 users. What terminology should >>> we be using anyway?) > >> Yeah we need to somehow

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

Petr Jelinek writes: > On 06/05/17 19:15, Tom Lane wrote: >> (Or, wait a minute. That documentation only applies to v10, but we >> need to be writing this relnote for 9.6 users. What terminology should >> we be using anyway?) > Yeah we need to somehow mention that it only affects 3rd party tool

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 06/05/17 19:15, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> On 06/05/17 18:16, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Hmm, I'm hoping for something more user-oriented. Is the corruption >>> time-limited? What's an "exported snapshot" anyway, is it the same >>> thing as pg_export_snapshot(), and if so what's that

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

Petr Jelinek writes: > On 06/05/17 18:16, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, I'm hoping for something more user-oriented. Is the corruption >> time-limited? What's an "exported snapshot" anyway, is it the same >> thing as pg_export_snapshot(), and if so what's that got to do with >> logical replication? >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 06/05/17 18:16, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> On 06/05/17 17:25, Tom Lane wrote: >>> OK, can you suggest better wording? > >> Something like the attached (it requires some polishing of English >> probably). > > Hmm, I'm hoping for something more user-oriented. Is the corruption >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

Petr Jelinek writes: > On 06/05/17 17:25, Tom Lane wrote: >> OK, can you suggest better wording? > Something like the attached (it requires some polishing of English > probably). Hmm, I'm hoping for something more user-oriented. Is the corruption time-limited? What's an "exported snapshot" any

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 06/05/17 17:25, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> Hmm, the 2bef06d51 and 56e19d938 are fixes for different bugs, we can >> keep them together since result of both is corrupted snapshot, but the >> description can't just mangle pieces of text from different commits >> together like this

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

Petr Jelinek writes: > Hmm, the 2bef06d51 and 56e19d938 are fixes for different bugs, we can > keep them together since result of both is corrupted snapshot, but the > description can't just mangle pieces of text from different commits > together like this as that's misleading. OK, can you sugges

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 06/05/17 01:37, Tom Lane wrote: > I've written $SUBJECT ... you can find them at > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=54dbd4dc78b045ffcc046b9a43681770c3992dd4 > Hmm, the 2bef06d51 and 56e19d938 are fixes for different bugs, we can keep them together since res

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases are up for review

Tobias Bussmann writes: > another typo taken over from commit log: > s/Tobias Bussman/Tobias Bussmann/ Will fix, thanks! regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases are up for review

Am 04.02.2017 um 18:57 schrieb Tom Lane : > Right now the question is whether individual items are > correctly/adequately documented. > Allow statements prepared with PREPARE to be given parallel plans (Amit > Kapila, Tobias Bussman) another typo taken over from commit log: s/Tobias Bussman/Tob

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases are up for review

Amit Kapila writes: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Fix possible miss of socket read events while waiting on Windows (Amit >> Kapial) > Typo > Amit Kapial/Amit Kapila Wups. Copied-and-pasted that from the commit log without stopping to question it. Will fix, thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases are up for review

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > First-draft release notes are available at > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9863017b87f3592ff663d03fc663a4f1f8fdb8b2 > They should appear in a more readable form at > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Please review ... Is somebody going to look at the bugfix for the issue where ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING is used at higher isolation levels [1]? I think that it's still possible to get it in. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam3swzr6an++h

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * We should look into using the ucol_nextSortKeyPart() API: > > http://userguide.icu-project.org/collation/architecture#TOC-Partial-sort-keys Another more rich API we could immediately put to good use is the ICU strcoll() variant that does

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > It's based on https://people.freebsd.org/~girgen/postgresql-icu/readme.html > work, and it was migrated to 9.5 with abbrevation keys support. > Patch in current state is not ready to commit, of course. Cool. Some quick observations on this:

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, too late for 9.5.2 anyway. It still makes sense to correct that > text for future releases. I'm inclined to wait a little bit though and > see what other improvements become apparent. For instance, I think the > point about non-first inde

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

Peter Geoghegan writes: > I just noticed that the release notes mention char(n) as affected. > That's not actually true, because char(n) SortSupport only came in > 9.6. The Wiki page now shows this, which may be the most important > place, but ideally we'd fix this in the release notes. I guess it

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Probably the most discussion-worthy item is whether we can say > anything more about the strxfrm mess. Should we make a wiki > page about that and have the release note item link to it? I just noticed that the release notes mention char(n) as af

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

Does include ICU mean that collation handling is identical across platforms? E.g. a query on Linux involving string comparison would yield the same result on MacOS and Windows? Yes, it does and that's the most important issue for us. Yes, exactly. Attached patch adds support for libi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm also not exactly convinced by your implicit assumption that ICU is > > bug-free. > > Noah spent some time looking at ICU back when he was EnterpriseDB, and > his conclusion was that I

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Oleg Bartunov-2 wrote > > But still, icu provides us abbreviated keys and collation stability, > > Does include ICU mean that collation handling is identical across > platforms? > E.g. a query on Linux involving string comparison would yie

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm also not exactly convinced by your implicit assumption that ICU is > bug-free. Noah spent some time looking at ICU back when he was EnterpriseDB, and his conclusion was that ICU collations weren't stable across releases, which is pretty much

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

Oleg Bartunov writes: > Should we start thinking about ICU ? Isn't it still true that ICU fails to meet our minimum requirements? That would include (a) working with the full Unicode character range (not only UTF16) and (b) working with non-Unicode encodings. No doubt we could deal with (b) by i

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

Oleg Bartunov-2 wrote > But still, icu provides us abbreviated keys and collation stability, Does include ICU mean that collation handling is identical across platforms? E.g. a query on Linux involving string comparison would yield the same result on MacOS and Windows? If that is the case I'm al

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Oleg Bartunov > wrote: > > We'll post the patch. > > Cool. > > > Teodor made something to get abbreviated keys work as > > I remember. I should say, that 27x improvement I got on my macbook. I > will > >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > We'll post the patch. Cool. > Teodor made something to get abbreviated keys work as > I remember. I should say, that 27x improvement I got on my macbook. I will > check on linux. I think that Linux will be much faster. The stxfrm() blob

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Oleg Bartunov > wrote: > > Should we start thinking about ICU ? I compare Postgres with ICU and > without > > and found 27x improvement in btree index creation for russian strings. > This > > includes eff

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > Should we start thinking about ICU ? I compare Postgres with ICU and without > and found 27x improvement in btree index creation for russian strings. This > includes effect of abbreviated keys and ICU itself. Also, we'll get system > indepen

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Mar 28, 2016 09:44, "Peter Geoghegan" wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Probably the most discussion-worthy item is whether we can say > > anything more about the strxfrm mess. Should we make a wiki > > page about that and have the release note item link to it? >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Probably the most discussion-worthy item is whether we can say > > anything more about the strxfrm mess. Should we make a wiki > > page about that and have the release note item link t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Probably the most discussion-worthy item is whether we can say > anything more about the strxfrm mess. Should we make a wiki > page about that and have the release note item link to it? I think that there is an argument against doing so, which i

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

Jeff Janes writes: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > + Correctly handle wraparound cases in the pg_subtrans > + startup logic for hot standby (Jeff Janes) > This applies to all recovery scenarios, whether they are hot standby > or just plain-old automatic crash recov

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for next week's releases

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've prepared a first cut at next week's release notes: > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=29b6123ecb4113e366325245cec5a5c221dae691 > > (As usual, I will make the notes for older branches by extracting > relevant

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

On 06/10/2015 11:35 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:31:43PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> First draft of the release announcement. Noah, thank you for corrections! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hack

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:31:43PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > First draft of the release announcement. > 2015-06-12 Update Release > = > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all > supported versions of our database system, including 9.4.4,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

On 06/09/2015 05:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 06/09/2015 04:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: Tom, all: First draft of the release announcement. Please improve

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 06/09/2015 04:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Tom, all: >>> >>> First draft of the release announcement. >>> >>> Please improve/edit/correct. Thanks! >> >> Some comments: >> s/expeci

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

On 06/09/2015 04:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Tom, all: >> >> First draft of the release announcement. >> >> Please improve/edit/correct. Thanks! > > Some comments: > s/expecially/especially. Thanks, fixed > > This bug fix is not menti

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, all: > > First draft of the release announcement. > > Please improve/edit/correct. Thanks! Some comments: s/expecially/especially. This bug fix is not mentioned (worth it?): Avoid deadlock between incoming sessions and CREATE/DROP DATAB

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

Tom, all: First draft of the release announcement. Please improve/edit/correct. Thanks! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com 2015-06-12 Update Release = The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all supported versions of o

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015-06-09 13:09:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I've pushed up draft release notes for 9.4.4 at > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=21187cfc7dfd82461db9119377a76366c00d27c3 > > Please review and comment ASAP, particularly if the in

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-06-09 13:09:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I've pushed up draft release notes for 9.4.4 at >> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=21187cfc7dfd82461db9119377a76366c00d27c3 >> Please review and comment ASAP, particularly if the instructions

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al

Hi, On 2015-06-09 13:09:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed up draft release notes for 9.4.4 at > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=21187cfc7dfd82461db9119377a76366c00d27c3 > Please review and comment ASAP, particularly if the instructions regarding > avoiding e

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

I wrote: > First draft of release notes for the upcoming minor releases is committed > at > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=77e9125e847adf76e9466814781957c0f32d8554 > It should be visible on the documentation website after guaibasaurus does > its next buildfarm run

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> Perhaps the following two missed? > >> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=deadbf4f3324f7b2826cac60dd212dfa1b0084ec > >> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=cd63c57e5cbfc

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Amit Langote writes: > Perhaps the following two missed? > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=deadbf4f3324f7b2826cac60dd212dfa1b0084ec > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=cd63c57e5cbfc16239aa6837f8b7043a721cdd28 Hm? Those are both included

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Please let me know of any corrections ASAP. > > Note that I've been fairly ruthless about removing items altogether if > they were unlikely to have clear user-visible impact, because the notes > were eye-glazingly long already. Please mention it

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:38PM +0200, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch) > > I'm not familiar with the phrase "Shore up", I think it should use > more precise language: are the privilege

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? Sorry I'm late. > Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch) I'm not familiar with the phrase "Shore up", I think it should use more precise language: are

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Josh Berkus writes: > On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html >> Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? > Major: > Do we have an expla

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html > > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? > > Major: > > Do we have an

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? Major: Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

Mika Eloranta writes: > On 02 Dec 2013, at 01:56, Tom Lane wrote: >> * any other items that need to be corrected or expanded? > I think 2103430 (Fix parsing of xlog file name in pg_receivexlog) is worth > mentioning, > as all past pg_receivexlog 9.3.x versions fail to resume interrupted > str

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

On 2013-12-02 10:51:28 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > "The issue can be ameliorated by, after upgrading, vacuuming all tables > in all databases while having vacuum_freeze_table_age set to zero. " > > Why not say: > > "This issue can be ameliorated by, after upgrading, running a > database

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

Tom, "The issue can be ameliorated by, after upgrading, vacuuming all tables in all databases while having vacuum_freeze_table_age set to zero. " Why not say: "This issue can be ameliorated by, after upgrading, running a database-wide VACUUM FREEZE." Or is there a difference in this case? If s

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

On 02 Dec 2013, at 01:56, Tom Lane wrote: > > * any other items that need to be corrected or expanded? I think 2103430 (Fix parsing of xlog file name in pg_receivexlog) is worth mentioning, as all past pg_receivexlog 9.3.x versions fail to resume interrupted streaming after ~4 GiB of xlogs ha

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

On 2013-12-02 12:26:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > I think it might be worth mentioning that (parts) of the data are > > potentially recoverable without too much effort in all of the bugs. > > I thought about that but was afraid that it'd come off like a commercial > for da

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2013-12-01 18:56:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> * is it useful to go into more detail than this about the data corruption >> bugs? It's not clear to me that we can say more than "vacuum and re-clone >> your standbys" as far as recovery actions go, at least not within the

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

Sergey Burladyan writes: > Is it possible to fix my surname in changelog? > -Sergey Burladyn > +Sergey Burladyan Oh, sorry about that! I can't do anything about the typo in the commit log, but certainly we can get it right in the release notes. regards, tom lane -- Se

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2013-12-01 18:56:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'd like to do any required editing on the notes at this stage, > >> before I start extracting relevant subsets for the older branches. > > > When do you plan to backpat

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2013-12-01 18:56:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd like to do any required editing on the notes at this stage, >> before I start extracting relevant subsets for the older branches. > When do you plan to backpatch the documentation? Tomorrow afternoon (my time).

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes for 9.3.2

On 2013-12-01 18:56:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I've put up draft notes at > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=23e796de15567e9d31e8f9e8661828179f24a7be > and they should be visible on the docs website at > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-2.htm

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 08:28:22AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-03-29 02:46 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: > >Since there has been some, um, grumbling about the quality of the > >release notes of late, I've prepared draft notes for next week's > >releases, covering commits through today. T

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 09:25:39AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > doc/src/sgml/release.sgml suggest using the last one but when I looked at > release-9.3, I saw "(AlvaroAacute;lvaro Herrera)" in the webpage several times > where the sgml contains "(Álvaro Herrera)", so it's not bulletproof > e

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

2013-04-21 08:28 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta: 2013-03-29 02:46 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Since there has been some, um, grumbling about the quality of the release notes of late, I've prepared draft notes for next week's releases, covering commits through today. These are now committe

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

2013-03-29 02:46 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Since there has been some, um, grumbling about the quality of the release notes of late, I've prepared draft notes for next week's releases, covering commits through today. These are now committed into the master branch for review, and should show up

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes up for review

Tom Lane wrote: > Since there has been some, um, grumbling about the quality of the > release notes of late, I've prepared draft notes for next week's > releases, covering commits through today. These are now committed > into the master branch for review, and should show up at > http://www.postgre

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

  1   2   3   >