Re: [pgsql-advocacy] First draft of Beta announcement - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter:

Replying in one long-ass email:

On 05/11/2017 12:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr.
>>
>> Please look and suggest any additional improvements.
>
> There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;).  I tried to point in the
> right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide
> numbers...

Can you suggest a different 1-line description?  Because that's what I
got from your slides.  What are we actually doing differently?

On 05/12/2017 12:46 AM, Gunnar "Nick" Bluth wrote:
>  65 * [What's New in
> 9.6](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/New_in_postgres_10)
>   66 * [9.5 Open
> Items](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_10_Open_Items)
>
> Those should probably read "10.0" or "10", not "9.6" and "9.5" resp.
>
> Best regards,
>

Ooops, that was a commit-specific link.  Those are already fixed in
current.  Try this  link:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob_plain;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;hb=HEAD

On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> > Read it here:
>> >
>> >

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD
>> >
>> > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit
them
>> > to the git repo if you have access.
> The capitalization in this text is really weird.  Most capitalized words
> should not be.

I was capitalizing the names of new features to call them out.  Too
confusing?

On 05/12/2017 07:58 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Read it here:

> There are a couple of things:
>
> * target_session_attrs parameter, so a client can request a read/write
host
>
> Most people won't know what that means. I can conclude that it means
> that we can now connect to PostgreSQL and say, "please give me a read
> only or a read/write host" but I am sure I am not 100% correct. I know
> more about PostgreSQL than most who will care about this announcement.

The idea is more to get people -- specifically driver and ORM authors --
interested enough to bother looking up the feature.  Not to describe it
in full, which would take a paragraph.

> * WAL support for Hash Indexes
>
> Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes.

Crash safe is good.

>
> WAL is irrelevant in terms of the announcement.
>
> New "monitoring" roles for permission grants
>
> Is roles supposed to be plural?

Yes.

>
> Full Text Search support for JSON and JSONB
> XMLTABLE query expression
> Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers
> WAL support for Hash Indexes
>
> The order above is going to likely be of more interest to our readers. I
> am not suggesting we remove the other items in the list but give
> precedence to those that most people will get the most bang for the buck
> out of.

OK.

>
> Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers
>
> What does this mean? (I know what it means), the majority of our readers
> will not.

If you can come up with a wording here which is clearer but takes one
line, be my guest.  I was unable to.

> Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible
> changes. It is critical that all users test it against their
> applications and platforms as soon as possible.
>
> I don't think we need to say anything more than:
>
> Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a
> list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release
> notes).

I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10
is going to be a shock to a lot of people.  We really haven't seen this
quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long
before the majority of our current users were using Postgres.  Given
that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users
will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to
point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing.  At a
minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of
xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0.

I'm personally planning to also write a blog post called "break all the
things" with even more detail (I was going to contribute this to the
main docs, but nobody on -hackers can decide where it should go).


--
Josh Berkus
Containers & Databases Oh My!