"Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Note that I am not arguing one way or the other, but I find the
>> distinction between a individual who is a contributor and a company that
>> is a contributor interesting.
>
> Individual mentions are only so we know who did the work. Company names
> are for advertizement, and that doesn't belong in the release notes.
I think it would be kind of neat to see all the sponsored work somewhere. Only
I think it may be a bit repetitive with Redhat sponsoring most of the best
stuff... :)
As for what items should go in, I think it should be pretty clear if you put
yourself in the seat of a user trying to determine if upgrading will solve
problems with their application or allow them to do things with their
application that they couldn't before.
It's certainly possible for performance improvements to affect that. I think
"multiple space reductions, especially (but not only) for text, numeric and
other variable sized data" could easily be something which particular DBAs
would have noticed was a problem they needed to deal with.
I understand the thinking but I disagree that "various optimizations speeding
up merge sort, reducing contention at transaction start and end, ..." is
entirely content-free. I agree that nobody is really going to be specifically
saying "gee, i wish we could use postgres but merge-join is just too slow".
However as a user I find it helpful to get a kind of overview of the kinds of
invisible changes there were so I can get a feel for the magnitude of the
improvements between versions.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
