Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwb6B0U8AmPodihLSBq7XEYQdKKnzxHkh38g_ktngzV6oA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
[ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ]

This is where the link to the online version was; reading the sgml and/or compiling ends up being a bit more than I wanted to do to review these.
 

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs
> rewording.

Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not
sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward.

Removing it doesn't seem like a bad choice...The user should realize the relevant preceding linked guc is where they should look for more details - pointing it out to them seems verbose.  But the meaning is clear regardless of familiarity.
 
> Is it worth mentioning the deprecation of exclusive backups in the notes
> introducing non-exclusive ones?

It's not clear to me that we're actually deprecating them; there did not
seem to be consensus on that.
 
Then section 24.3.3 needs fixing. The second paragraph explicitly states it is deprecated.


David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered