Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane > TBH, I think that's another reason for not release-noting it. There's no > concrete change to point to, and so it's hard to figure out what to say. > I'm not even very sure that we

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 09/19/2017 09:32 AM, 'Bruce Momjian' wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:30:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: "'Bruce Momjian'" writes: On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:22:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: We don't normally release-note documentation changes. If this wasn't purely a

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

"'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:30:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, if the intent of the note was to encourage people to raise >> shared_buffers, it didn't do a very good job of that as written, >> because I sure didn't understand it that way. > Do

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:30:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:22:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> We don't normally release-note documentation changes. If this > >> wasn't purely a documentation change, then I was probably

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

"'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:22:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> We don't normally release-note documentation changes. If this >> wasn't purely a documentation change, then I was probably in error >> to decide it didn't need to be in the notes. > It was

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:22:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > > I am sure Tom can explain his reasoning. > > We don't normally release-note documentation changes. If this > wasn't purely a documentation change, then I was probably in error > to decide

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

"'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > I am sure Tom can explain his reasoning. We don't normally release-note documentation changes. If this wasn't purely a documentation change, then I was probably in error to decide it didn't need to be in the notes. regards,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 03:13:50AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > It's embarrassing to ask about such a trivial thing, but I noticed > the following line was missing in the latest release note, which was > originally in Bruce's website: > > Remove documented restriction about using large

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

It's embarrassing to ask about such a trivial thing, but I noticed the following line was missing in the latest release note, which was originally in Bruce's website: Remove documented restriction about using large shared buffers on Windows (Takayuki Tsunakawa) Is this intended? Regards

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 09/12/2017 01:50 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I don't know, but I suggest you read this email thread from April to get > an idea of how performance items are handled: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170425013144.GA7513%40momjian.us#20170425013144.ga7...@momjian.us Oh,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 08:53:51AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> "Add AFTER trigger transition tables to record changed rows (Kevin Grittner)" >> >> Any chance I could ask for a secondary author credit here? > > Sure,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 05:39:31PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I have committed the first draft of the Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 08:53:51AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > > give

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:39:43PM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > On 07/13/2017 04:36 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > > Hello hackers, > > > > From: Peter Geoghegan > >> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:19:57 -0700 > >> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 06:30:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 04:05:44PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> Can you change the attribution on > >> Allow PL/Tcl functions to return composite types and sets > >> to Karl Lehenbauer? > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 04:05:44PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Can you change the attribution on >> Allow PL/Tcl functions to return composite types and sets >> to Karl Lehenbauer? > Done and backpatched. Sorry for the delay. I don't see this pushed to

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 04:05:44PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 4/24/17 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > >are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > >give me any feedback you have. > > > >The

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 07/13/2017 04:36 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > Hello hackers, > > From: Peter Geoghegan >> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:19:57 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit >> overflow >> On pgsql-b...@postgresql.org > > On 07/06/2017 12:19 AM,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Hi all, On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They >> are current as of two days ago, and I will keep

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > give me any feedback you have. Hi Bruce, "Add AFTER trigger transition

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 07/13/2017 04:36 PM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > Hello hackers, > > From: Peter Geoghegan >> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:19:57 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit >> overflow >> On pgsql-b...@postgresql.org > > On 07/06/2017 12:19 AM,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Hello hackers, From: Peter Geoghegan > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:19:57 -0700 > Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14722: Segfault in tuplesort_heap_siftup, 32 bit > overflow > On pgsql-b...@postgresql.org On 07/06/2017 12:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > In Postgres 10, tuplesort external

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 03:18:49PM +1000, Neha Khatri wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:50:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > > > Bruce, the release

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:50:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > > > Bruce, the release notes do not mention yet that support for cleartext > > > passwords is removed.

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 4/24/17 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please give me any feedback you have. The only unusual thing is that this release has ~180 items while most recent

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

2017-05-04 22:26 GMT-03:00 Andres Freund : > At least I was a bit more optimistic that we'd get a decent json plugin > into care soon-ish. While there was some initial work towards that, it > unfortunately stalled at some point. > > That was my initial idea but there wasn't

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:50:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > Bruce, the release notes do not mention yet that support for cleartext > > passwords is removed. This has been done recently by Heikki in > > eb61136d. This has as consequence that

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Michael Paquier writes: > Bruce, the release notes do not mention yet that support for cleartext > passwords is removed. This has been done recently by Heikki in > eb61136d. This has as consequence that CREATE ROLE PASSWORD > UNENCRYPTED returns an error, and that

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > [other stuff] Bruce, the release notes do not mention yet that support for cleartext passwords is removed. This has been done recently by Heikki in eb61136d. This has as consequence that CREATE ROLE PASSWORD UNENCRYPTED

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:18:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:12:34PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> On Tue,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:18:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:12:34PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > I

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:12:34PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They >> >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 07:01:17PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thanks for doing this, looks great. A few notes: > > > > >Add the ability to compute a correlation ratio and the number of >distinct values on several columns (Tomas Vondra, David Rowley) >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 05/05/17 02:46, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am getting tired of saying this. When I am writing the release notes, > > I am trying to figure out how it affects our shipped code, and the only > > "decoding" I know of is

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 05/05/17 02:46, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 05:09:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: I would not in any way refer to logical decoding as being only a proof of concept, even before logical replication. >>> >>> The community ships a reliable logical _encoding_, and a

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 05/05/17 03:26, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-04 18:23:38 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: E.g. to power amazon's data migration service (yes, that scares me). >>> >>> If you recall, I did predict prior to

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-05-04 18:23:38 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> E.g. to power amazon's data migration service (yes, that scares me). > > > > If you recall, I did predict prior to commit that test_decoding would > > get put into

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> E.g. to power amazon's data migration service (yes, that scares me). > > If you recall, I did predict prior to commit that test_decoding would > get put into production use regardless of the name. I thought you were

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 05:09:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> > > I would not in any way refer to logical decoding as being only a proof >> > > of concept, even before logical replication. >> > >> > The community ships a

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-05-04 21:08:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:02:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Even test_decoding is (perhaps regrettably) being used to build production > >> solutions. > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:02:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Even test_decoding is (perhaps regrettably) being used to build production >> solutions. > > E.g. to power amazon's data migration service (yes, that scares

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-05-04 20:46:24 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 05:09:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > I would not in any way refer to logical decoding as being only a proof > > > > of concept, even before logical replication. > > > > > > The community ships a reliable

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > The community ships a reliable logical _encoding_, and a test logical > _decoding_. As far as I am aware, logical encoding is a term you just made up, because it's not referenced anywhere in the commit log or the source

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 05:09:40PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I would not in any way refer to logical decoding as being only a proof > > > of concept, even before logical replication. > > > > The community ships a reliable logical _encoding_, and a test logical > > _decoding_. > > Yes, so

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-05-04 19:56:21 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:02:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > This came up from discussion related to this item: > > the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches > > My point was that based on the text it is test_decoding

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 07:01:17PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thanks for doing this, looks great. A few notes: > > > > >Add the ability to compute a correlation ratio and the number of >distinct values on several columns (Tomas Vondra, David Rowley) >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 06:02:58PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I can't see how this can be added to an existing BRIN entry, so it would > > have to be new. The text would be: > > > > Improve accuracy in determining if a BRIN index scan is beneficial > > > > though this not something I

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-05-04 19:56:21 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:02:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches. > > > > > > I didn't think logical

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

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

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:02:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches. > > > > I didn't think logical decoding was really more than a proof-of-concept > > until

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:12:34PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 04:05:09PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > > give me any feedback

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 03:04:57PM +0200, Daniel Verite wrote: > Fabien COELHO wrote: > > >Fix psql \p to always print what would be executed by \g or \w (Daniel > >Vérité) > > > >Previously \p didn't properly print the reverted-to command after a > >buffer contents reset.

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:43:34AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Bruce, > > >I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > >are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > >give me any feedback you have. > > About: > > """ > Fix

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:21:44AM +0500, Andrew Borodin wrote: > Hi, Bruce! > > 2017-04-25 6:31 GMT+05:00 Bruce Momjian : > > The only unusual thing is that this release has ~180 items while most > > recent release have had ~220. The pattern I see that there are more > > large

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-05-04 17:33:13 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I didn't think logical decoding was really more than a proof-of-concept > >> until

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-04-25 15:29:01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Uh, the only logical decoding code that I know we ship pre-PG 10 is > contrib/test_decoding/. That's completely wrong. src/backend/replication/logical/ is a a bit bigger than that... - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I didn't think logical decoding was really more than a proof-of-concept >> until now. > > /me searches for jaw on floor. > > I would not in any

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Thanks for doing this, looks great. A few notes: Add the ability to compute a correlation ratio and the number of distinct values on several columns (Tomas Vondra, David Rowley) I think this should be worded in terms of "extended data statistics" or

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:03:53PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > ..On 25 April 2017 at 13:31, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > The only unusual thing is that this release has ~180 items while most > > > recent release have had ~220. The pattern I see that

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Claudio Freire wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > However, given your explanation, I have added the item: > > > >Improve speed of VACUUM's removal of trailing empty > >heap pages (Alvaro Herrera) > > That's enough for me, thanks.

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I think that might also be because you skipped a few things that should >> get their own entries. I've not yet made a pass through your draft (and >> won't for some days), but a quick search shows the draft to e.g miss:

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 05/01/2017 05:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let alone RFC links. Why not? I think RFC references are a great thing to include in the release notes, and

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let > alone RFC links. Why not? I think RFC references are a great thing to include in the release notes, and including links seems helpful, too. --

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches. > > I didn't think logical decoding was really more than a proof-of-concept > until now. /me searches for jaw on floor. It sounds like you don't understand

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > give me any feedback you have. > Related to a following item in release

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:00:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > > Oh, so non-correlated subqueries can be run in parallel. Yes, that is >> > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Bruce Momjian writes: > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They > are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please > give me any feedback you have. I noticed a few niggles with the links in "my" entires, patch attached.

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:00:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Oh, so non-correlated subqueries can be run in parallel. Yes, that is > > > something we should have in the release notes. How is this? > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:14:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Improve efficiency of hash index growth (Amit Kapila, Mithun Cy) > > > > The first two commits b0f18cb77, 30df93f69 are done as preliminary > work to "Add write-ahead logging support to

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:00:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Oh, so non-correlated subqueries can be run in parallel. Yes, that is > > something we should have in the release notes. How is this? > > > > Author: Robert Haas > > 2017-02-14 [5e6d8d2bb]

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Fabien COELHO wrote: >Fix psql \p to always print what would be executed by \g or \w (Daniel >Vérité) > >Previously \p didn't properly print the reverted-to command after a >buffer contents reset. CLARIFY? > > The fix is linked to the change introduced by Tom when >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Hello Bruce, I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. They are current as of two days ago, and I will keep them current. Please give me any feedback you have. About: """ Fix psql \p to always print what would be executed by \g or \w (Daniel Vérité)

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Hi, Bruce! 2017-04-25 6:31 GMT+05:00 Bruce Momjian : > The only unusual thing is that this release has ~180 items while most > recent release have had ~220. The pattern I see that there are more > large features in this release than previous ones. I'm not sure, but, probably,

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:05:41PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > I think the above commit needs a separate mention, as this is a really >> > huge step forward to control the size of hash indexes. >> >> Yes, it is

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:38:05PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> I have already mentioned the commit id (5e6d8d2b). Text can be "Allow >> >> queries containing subplans to execute in parallel". We should also >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:38:05PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I have already mentioned the commit id (5e6d8d2b). Text can be "Allow > >> queries containing subplans to execute in parallel". We should also > >> mention in some way that this applies only when the query contains > >>

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:00:45AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:30:50AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:34:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Just wondering if the mention of commit > >> 0414b26bac09379a4cbf1fbd847d1cee2293c5e4 is missed? Not sure if this > >> requires a separate entry or could be merged with -- Support parallel > >> btree index scans. > > > > This item

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:56:58PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > SCRAM-SHA-256 improves deficiencies of MD5 password hashing by > > preventing any kind of pass-the-hash vulnerabilities, where a user > > would be able to connect to a PostgreSQL instance by just knowing the > > hash of a password

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:38:55AM +0530, Rafia Sabih wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Andres Freund writes: >> >> On 2017-04-24 23:37:42 -0400, Bruce

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let > alone RFC links. > > Second, there seems to be some confusion over what SCRAM-SHA-256 gives > us over MD5. I think there are a few benefits: > > o

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:17:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-25 22:13:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches. > > > > When you say "logical decoding", you

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-04-25 22:13:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > > > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 2017-04-25 21:19:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches. > > When you say "logical decoding", you don't mean contrib/test_decoding? No. test_decoding is just an example

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > First, I don't think RFC references belong in the release notes, let > > alone RFC links. > > > > Second, there seems to be some confusion over what

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:02:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:39:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> > >> Add SCRAM-SHA-256 > >> support for password negotiation and storage (Michael

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:51:47AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > I also wonder if ability to run SQL queries on walsender connected to a > database is worth mentioning (replication=database kind of connection). > > Or the ability of logical decoding to follow timeline switches. When you say

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

From: 'Bruce Momjian' [mailto:br...@momjian.us] > > I forgot to point out one thing. > > > > Allow libpq to connect to multiple specified host names (Robert Haas) > > libpq will connect with the first responsive host name. > > > > According to the following CF entry and my memory, > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:26:33AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Hello, Bruce > > I forgot to point out one thing. > > Allow libpq to connect to multiple specified host names (Robert Haas) > libpq will connect with the first responsive host name. > > According to the following CF entry

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Hello, Bruce I forgot to point out one thing. Allow libpq to connect to multiple specified host names (Robert Haas) libpq will connect with the first responsive host name. According to the following CF entry and my memory, https://commitfest.postgresql.org/12/879/ Authors mithun cy

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:39:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> Add SCRAM-SHA-256 >> support for password negotiation and storage (Michael >> Paquier, Heikki Linnakangas) >> >> >> This proves better security than

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:17:29PM -0400, Tels wrote: > > I think all that was missing was "time": > > > > By default planning and execution time is display by > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE and not display in other cases. > > The new EXPLAIN option SUMMARY allows > > explicit

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:12:05PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 25/04/17 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >> I also wonder if ability to run SQL queries on walsender connected to a > >> database is worth mentioning (replication=database kind of connection). > > > > Uh, why would that be

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, April 25, 2017 1:21 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0400, Tels wrote: >> Moin, >> >> On Mon, April 24, 2017 9:31 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 10 release notes. >> They >> > are current as of two days ago, and

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:37:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-04-25 13:11:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > I don't think this warrants inclusion in the release notes for reasons >> > already discussed. The

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On 25/04/17 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I also wonder if ability to run SQL queries on walsender connected to a >> database is worth mentioning (replication=database kind of connection). > > Uh, why would that be important to users? Because every tool that uses logical decoding to capture

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

Hi, On 2017-04-25 13:39:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Understood, but the question is whether the release notes are the right > place to educate users of something that will no longer be a problem. I think it's the *prime* place for it. It obviously doesn't matter if you're not affected by

Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:44:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:00:52AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >> at this point, you can see, we've squarely left O(N) country, and > >> entered the vast O(N^2) waste. > > > OK, I got it

  1   2   >