On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:30:50AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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.
> >
>
> Some of the items which I feel could be added:
>
> 5e6d8d2bbbcace304450b309e79366c0da4063e4
> Allow parallel workers to execute subplans.
Uh, can you show me the commit on that and give some text ideas?
> 61c2e1a95f94bb904953a6281ce17a18ac38ee6d
> Improve access to parallel query from procedural languages.
I think I have that:
Increase parallel query usage in procedural language functions (RobertHaas)
> In Parallel Queries section, we can add above two items as they
> increase the usage of the parallel query in many cases.
>
> ea69a0dead5128c421140dc53fac165ba4af8520
> Expand hash indexes more gradually.
That is in this item:
Improve hash bucket split performance by reducing locking requirements(Amit Kapila, Mithun Cy)Also cache hash index
meta-informationfor faster lookups. Additionalhash performance improvements have also been made. pg_upgrade'd
hashindexesfrom previous major Postgres versions must be rebuilt.
Can you suggest additional wording? I did merge many of the hash items
into this so it would be understandable. You can see the commits in the
SGML source.
> 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 unfotunate that the item is in the incompatibility item. I
wonder if I should split out the need to rebuild the hash indexes and
keep it there and move this item into the "Index" section.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
