Thread: Draft release notes up for review
Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? regards, tom lane
On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? Major: Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is, anywhere, so that we can link it? Minor: ECPG or ecpg? Pick one or the other. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html > > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? > > Major: > > Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is, anywhere, so that we > can link it? Is this enough? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-MULTIXACT-WRAPAROUND -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html >> Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? > Major: > Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is, anywhere, so that we > can link it? Fixed. I did a bit of wordsmithing on the text Alvaro pointed to, too. > Minor: > ECPG or ecpg? Pick one or the other. AFAICS, "ecpg" is the vast majority case in the release notes, so that's what I've used. regards, tom lane
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches? Sorry I'm late. > Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch) I'm not familiar with the phrase "Shore up", I think it should use more precise language: are the privilege checks getting more strict or less strict? ---- Wow, there are quite a lot of items this time. Have you considered grouping the items by their impact, for example security/data corruption/crash/correctness/other? I think that would make it easier for readers to find items they're interested in. Most changes seem pretty straightforward to categorize; there are always outliers, but even if a few items are miscategorized, that's an improvement over what we have now. Of course someone has to be willing to do that work. If this warrants more discussion, I can draft out a proposal in a new topic. Regards, Marti
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:38PM +0200, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch) > > I'm not familiar with the phrase "Shore up", I think it should use > more precise language: are the privilege checks getting more strict or > less strict? Here, "shore up" essentially means "fix." The checks are now stricter. I will look for more-specific words next time, but I think the paragraph following that headline illustrates that we fixed overly-permissive checks. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com