Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
Date | |
Msg-id | Zk5r2XyI0BhXLF8h@momjian.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Responses |
Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:27:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2024-05-18 10:59:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I agree the impact of performance improvements are often greater than > > the average release note item. However, if people expect Postgres to be > > faster, is it important for them to know _why_ it is faster? > > Yes, it very often is. Performance improvements typically aren't "make > everything 3% faster", they're more "make this special thing 20% > faster". Without know what got faster, users don't know if > a) the upgrade will improve their production situation > b) they need to change something to take advantage of the improvement You might have seen in this thread, I do record commits that speed up workloads that are user-visible, or specifically make new workloads possible. I assume that covers the items above, though I have to determine this from the commit message. > > On the flip side, a performance improvement that makes everything 10% > > faster has little behavioral change for users, and in fact I think we > > get ~6% faster in every major release. > > I cannot recall many "make everything faster" improvements, if any. > > And even if it's "make everything faster" - that's useful for users to know, > it might solve their production problem! It's also good for PR. Again, it is down to having three goals for the release notes, and #1 is having it readable/short, and 2 & 3 are for PR and acknowledging authors. > Also, the release notes are also not just important to users. I often go back > and look in the release notes to see when some some important change was made, > because sometimes it's harder to find it in the git log, due to sheer > volume. And even just keeping up with all the changes between two releases is > hard, it's useful to be able to read the release notes and see what happened. Well, I would say we need some _other_ way to record and perhaps advertise such changes. > > > For another, it's also very frustrating for developers that focus on > > > performance. The reticence to note their work, while noting other, far > > > smaller, things in the release notes, pretty much tells us that our work isn't > > > valued. > > > > Yes, but are we willing to add text that every user will have to read > > just for this purpose? > > Of course it's a tradeoff. We shouldn't verbosely note down every small > changes just because of the recognition, that'd make the release notes > unreadable. And it'd just duplicate the commit log. But that's not the same as > defaulting to not noting performance improvements, even if the performance > improvement is more impactful than many other features that are noted. Again, see above, I do mention performance improvements, but they have to be user-visible or enable new workloads. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
pgsql-hackers by date: