Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Christian Ullrich writes: > * Tom Lane wrote: >> To my mind, an option that's set to 1 is "enabled". Should the second >> para read "Do not disable ..."? Or maybe we should reverse the sense >> of the flag, so that the default state can be 0 == disabled? > Well spotted,

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

* Tom Lane wrote: Christian Ullrich writes: I suggest writing "use the Kerberos realm name for authentication instead of the NetBIOS name" either in place of the existing description or together with it. OK, how about this: Add new SSPI

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Is it really sensible to group f1f5ec1ef together with the others? I > > think that one should be its own entry. > > Peter seemed happy with the idea, cf >

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Is it really sensible to group f1f5ec1ef together with the others? I > think that one should be its own entry. Peter seemed happy with the idea, cf

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Speed up sorting of uuid, bytea, and char(n) fields by using abbreviated keys (Peter Geoghegan) Support for abbreviated keys has also been added to the non-default operator classes text_pattern_ops,

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Christian Ullrich writes: > * Tom Lane wrote: > + > +Add new SSPI authentication parameters compat_realm > +and upn_usename, to make it possible to make SSPI > +work more like GSSAPI (Christian Ullrich) > + > It is upn_username, not

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Jeff Janes writes: > This item: > "Avoid some spurious waits for AccessExclusiveLocks in hot-standby queries" > Should be something like > Avoid some unnecessary cancellations of hot-standy queries due to > AccessExclusiveLocks replay. > It was the cancellations, not the

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

* Tom Lane wrote: I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal of work to do yet: + + +Add new SSPI authentication parameters compat_realm +and upn_usename, to make it possible to make SSPI +work more like GSSAPI (Christian Ullrich) +

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal > of work to do yet: Thanks for assembling the notes. This item: "Avoid some spurious waits for AccessExclusiveLocks in hot-standby queries" Should be

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > * As is somewhat customary for early drafts of the notes, I've made no > > attempt to call out which are the most significant changes. I've not

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-05-05 13:32:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > + > + > +Add pg_config > +system view to expose the same information available from > +the pg_config utility (Joe Conway) > + > + > > Hm. Rereading this I'm wondering whether

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Geoghegan writes: >> I think that there could stand to be some consolidation among the >> items that I authored. > > After thinking a bit, I merged all the abbreviated-keys stuff including > the

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Peter Geoghegan writes: > I think that there could stand to be some consolidation among the > items that I authored. After thinking a bit, I merged all the abbreviated-keys stuff including the ordered-set-aggregate item. Let me know if that seems wrong. > Also, I personally

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Andres Freund writes: > wal-writer-flush-after doesn't really fit into this section, it wasn't > affected by any of the above commits, and the change in 9.6 is to make > it *less* aggressive in flushing (as you listed in a separate entry). I hadn't focused on this before, but

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Hi, On 2016-05-05 13:32:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > * Bruce usually likes to sprinkle the notes with a whole lot of links > to the main docs. I've only bothered with links for new GUCs and system > views. I guess it'd be worthwhile to add a links for new SQL functions as well. > Please review

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Please review and comment before Monday, if you can. I think that there could stand to be some consolidation among the items that I authored. Firstly, there's the abbreviated key stuff. The 9.5 notes described the

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Masahiko Sawada writes: > Very minor comment but I'd like to unify my name to First Last (i.g., > Masahiko Sawada). Will fix, thanks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Oh, now I see why it's not here: it was back-patched into 9.5, so it >> will not be a new feature in 9.6.0. It will be listed in the 9.5.3 >> release notes, instead. > I was really

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal > of work to do yet: > > * The section about parallel query could probably stand to be fleshed out, > but I'm unsure what to say. Somebody who's worked on

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, I had decided that wasn't worth listing, but now I can't think >> why :-(. Will add it. > > Oh, now I see why it's not here: it was back-patched into 9.5, so it > will not be a new feature in 9.6.0. It will be listed in

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

I wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> Are you not adding VS2015 support in those notes? > Hmm, I had decided that wasn't worth listing, but now I can't think > why :-(. Will add it. Oh, now I see why it's not here: it was back-patched into 9.5, so it will not be a

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Vitaly Burovoy writes: > 1. "YUriy Zhuravlev" should be "Yury Zhuravlev" > Previously[1] he had the first version in his signature, but I guess > it was misconfiguring, now[2] hi has second version. Ah. Now that I look, I see we've got three different ASCII-izations of

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On 5/5/16, Tom Lane wrote: > Please review and comment before Monday, if you can. > > regards, tom lane 1. "YUriy Zhuravlev" should be "Yury Zhuravlev" Previously[1] he had the first version in his signature, but I guess it was misconfiguring, now[2] hi

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Michael Paquier writes: > Are you not adding VS2015 support in those notes? Hmm, I had decided that wasn't worth listing, but now I can't think why :-(. Will add it. > Petr Jelinek is a > co-author btw, he's missing from the credits in 0fb54de. OK, thanks.

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2016-05-05 16:25:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> This was basically an attempt to cure a defect in 48354581a and could >>> perhaps be lumped under that item. > >> It's also an

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-05-05 16:25:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> This was basically an attempt to cure a defect in 48354581a and could >> perhaps be lumped under that item. > It's also an independent performance improvement (sadly), and has the > potential for

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On 2016-05-05 16:25:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Please review and comment before Monday, if you can. > > Overall, I think this looks pretty great. Thanks for pulling it > together so quickly. +1 > + > + > +

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Please review and comment before Monday, if you can. Overall, I think this looks pretty great. Thanks for pulling it together so quickly. Various nitpicky comments below. + +Extend relations multiple blocks

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > * As is somewhat customary for early drafts of the notes, I've made no > attempt to call out which are the most significant changes. I've not > tried to isolate the non-backwards-compatible items, either. There was quite a

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal > of work to do yet: > > * The section about parallel query could probably stand to be fleshed out, > but I'm unsure what to say. Somebody who's worked on

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > On 05/05/2016 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal >> of work to do yet: > Just for the cheap seats, I assume they are pushed to git?

Re: [HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

On 05/05/2016 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal of work to do yet: * The section about parallel query could probably stand to be fleshed out, but I'm unsure what to say. Somebody who's worked on that should provide some text. *

[HACKERS] Initial release notes created for 9.6

I've pushed a first cut at release notes for 9.6. There's a good deal of work to do yet: * The section about parallel query could probably stand to be fleshed out, but I'm unsure what to say. Somebody who's worked on that should provide some text. * Bruce usually likes to sprinkle the notes