On Sun, 4 May 2025 at 22:28, Alexander Borisov <lex.borisov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm actually a bit confused, and didn't expect such a heated discussion
> about creating an entry about my patch in Release Notes.
I definitely understand this. And to make my own opinion on this
matter extremely clear: I *do* think it's important to users, and it
should be included in the release notes.
I think there are a few things at play here why that did not happen in
Bruce his initial draft:
1. I personally think the requirement that Bruce uses for perf
improvements to make it into the changelog is too strict (see my
previous email for details)
2. Bruce is only a single person, and as such cannot read all emails
on pgsql-hackers, so he relies only on commit messages to determine
impact for release notes. The commit message for your change did not
include any details on the perf improvements that could be expected.
3. After skimming the email thread[1], it's hard for me to understand
where these perf numbers came from. And the first few results only
mention casefold performance i.e. they call the results: "casefold()
test." So, it's unclear what perf gains are expected for the other
functions mentioned in the email subject.
As for how to improve these:
1 is discussed/complained about basically every year whenever release
notes are created. I don't think we can do any better than having
those discussions. Unless someone else wants to start owning writing
the release notes, or we somehow share the burden, e.g. by having the
person that commits also write a release note entry.
2 can be improved by people including perf numbers in their commit
messages. The second way to improve is by sending feedback on the
release notes if things are missed, like you did.
3 is something you could help with I think. It would have been helpful
if you had shared the script/commands you used to get these
performance numbers. That way I could reproduce them myself. Also if
you had included some perf numbers for lower() and upper() that would
have been great too, as those are (currently) much more commonly used
than casefold(). NOTE: I might have missed the script or be wrong
about this some other way, since Jeff did not require this for
committing it. If so, please disregard.
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/7cac7e66-9a3b-4e3f-a997-42aa0c401f80%40gmail.com
> I will continue to improve Postgres.
Please do, your work is very much appreciated!
