Re: 9.5 release notes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: 9.5 release notes
Date
Msg-id 20150613105222.GS133018@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to 9.5 release notes  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: 9.5 release notes
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes.  You can view
> the output here:
> 
>     http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
>     
> and it will eventually appear here:
> 
>     http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release.html
> 
> I am ready to make suggested adjustments, though I am traveling for
> conferences for the next ten days so there might a delay in my replies.

Many people have commented on the "RETURN WHERE" text.  The item in
question is this:Have CREATE TABLE AS and REFRESH return an OID

This code was later changed to return ObjectAddress rather than OID;
this is used to feed event triggers.  To answer the "where" question:
the OID is returned to ProcessUtilitySlow, where it can be used by the
DDL-command-collection infrastructure.

I don't think this particular change needs a mention in the release
notes, since the ddl command collection is mentioned separately.  I
would just remove it.


In the pg_upgrade section, I think this is a bit strangely worded:Remove pg_upgrade support for 8.3 old clusters (Bruce
Momjian)
How about this?Remove support for upgrading from 8.3 clusters (Bruce Momjian)

Why do we need a separate mention that pg_upgrade_support was moved to
backend in the "Additional Modules" section?  Seems to me that having
it mentioned in the pg_upgrade section would be better.


This entry is missing a word at the end:Allow CURRENT/SESSION_USER to specify the current user incertain

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: deavid
Date:
Subject: Re: Is it possible to have a "fast-write" Index?
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: On columnar storage