Thread: [pgsql-advocacy] First draft of Beta announcement
Folks: Read it here: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them to the git repo if you have access. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
Hi, On 2017-05-10 17:01:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks: > > Read it here: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > to the git repo if you have access. I'm biased, but imo we should also mention that analytics type queries are significantly faster (5dfc198146b, 75ae538bc, 8ed3f11bb0, b8d7f053c5c2). See slide 13 (9.6 -> first three improvements) and slide 18 (first three -> last improvement). - Andres
On 05/10/2017 05:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2017-05-10 17:01:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Folks: >> >> Read it here: >> >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >> >> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >> to the git repo if you have access. > > I'm biased, but imo we should also mention that analytics type queries > are significantly faster (5dfc198146b, 75ae538bc, 8ed3f11bb0, Agreed. BI is and analytics is all the rage. > b8d7f053c5c2). See slide 13 (9.6 -> first three improvements) and slide > 18 (first three -> last improvement). > > - Andres > > -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
> On 11 May 2017, at 02:01, Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org> wrote: > > Folks: > > Read it here: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > to the git repo if you have access. Pushed a fix to use https rather than http for postgresql.org links to avoid redirects. cheers ./daniel
On 11/05/17 02:01, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks: > > Read it here: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > to the git repo if you have access. Hi, > + We have also made two improvements to PostgreSQL connections, which we are calling on driver authors to support, andusers to test: Says two, lists three. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 11/05/17 02:14, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2017-05-10 17:01:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Folks: >> >> Read it here: >> >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >> >> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >> to the git repo if you have access. > > I'm biased, but imo we should also mention that analytics type queries > are significantly faster (5dfc198146b, 75ae538bc, 8ed3f11bb0, > b8d7f053c5c2). See slide 13 (9.6 -> first three improvements) and slide > 18 (first three -> last improvement). > What slide? Where? I do agree that this deserves mention though. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 2017-05-11 14:07:35 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 11/05/17 02:14, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On 2017-05-10 17:01:27 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Folks: > >> > >> Read it here: > >> > >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > >> > >> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > >> to the git repo if you have access. > > > > I'm biased, but imo we should also mention that analytics type queries > > are significantly faster (5dfc198146b, 75ae538bc, 8ed3f11bb0, > > b8d7f053c5c2). See slide 13 (9.6 -> first three improvements) and slide > > 18 (first three -> last improvement). > > > > What slide? Where? Oops, wanted to reference this: http://anarazel.de/talks/pgconf-us-2017-03-29/jit.pdf - Andres
All, This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr. Please look and suggest any additional improvements. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr. > > Please look and suggest any additional improvements. There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;). I tried to point in the right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide numbers... - Andres
Am 11.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Josh Berkus: > Folks: > > Read it here: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > to the git repo if you have access. 65 * [What's New in 9.6](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/New_in_postgres_10) 66 * [9.5 Open Items](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_10_Open_Items) Those should probably read "10.0" or "10", not "9.6" and "9.5" resp. Best regards, -- Gunnar "Nick" Bluth DBA ELSTER Extern im Auftrag der Hays AG Tel: +49 911/991-4665 Mobil: +49 172/8853339
On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: > Read it here: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > to the git repo if you have access. The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized words should not be. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Read it here: >> >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >> >> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >> to the git repo if you have access. > > The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized words > should not be. As this is a Beta announcement, the capitalization makes sense as a whole. I am not sure it would make sense as much in the release notes. There are a couple of things: * target_session_attrs parameter, so a client can request a read/write host Most people won't know what that means. I can conclude that it means that we can now connect to PostgreSQL and say, "please give me a read only or a read/write host" but I am sure I am not 100% correct. I know more about PostgreSQL than most who will care about this announcement. * WAL support for Hash Indexes Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes. WAL is irrelevant in terms of the announcement. New "monitoring" roles for permission grants Is roles supposed to be plural? Full Text Search support for JSON and JSONB XMLTABLE query expression Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers WAL support for Hash Indexes The order above is going to likely be of more interest to our readers. I am not suggesting we remove the other items in the list but give precedence to those that most people will get the most bang for the buck out of. Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers What does this mean? (I know what it means), the majority of our readers will not. Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible changes. It is critical that all users test it against their applications and platforms as soon as possible. I don't think we need to say anything more than: Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release notes). Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
On 12 May 2017, at 15:58, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: <snip> > Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible changes. It is critical that all users test itagainst their applications and platforms as soon as possible. > > I don't think we need to say anything more than: > > Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](linkto release notes). Calling it out specifically kind of makes sense though, just for the extra mental prompting that people might otherwise overlook. Would this do that, without making it sound quite as offputting? Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible changes. It is critical that all users test it against their applications before upgrading. + Justin -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
On 05/12/2017 08:04 AM, Justin Clift wrote: > On 12 May 2017, at 15:58, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > <snip> >> Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible changes. It is critical that all users test itagainst their applications and platforms as soon as possible. >> >> I don't think we need to say anything more than: >> >> Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](linkto release notes). > > Calling it out specifically kind of makes sense though, just for the > extra mental prompting that people might otherwise overlook. > > Would this do that, without making it sound quite as offputting? > > Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible > changes. It is critical that all users test it against their applications > before upgrading. Yeah I am cool with that as long as we include the link to the release notes. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter: Replying in one long-ass email: On 05/11/2017 12:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr. >> >> Please look and suggest any additional improvements. > > There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;). I tried to point in the > right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide > numbers... Can you suggest a different 1-line description? Because that's what I got from your slides. What are we actually doing differently? On 05/12/2017 12:46 AM, Gunnar "Nick" Bluth wrote: > 65 * [What's New in > 9.6](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/New_in_postgres_10) > 66 * [9.5 Open > Items](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_10_Open_Items) > > Those should probably read "10.0" or "10", not "9.6" and "9.5" resp. > > Best regards, > Ooops, that was a commit-specific link. Those are already fixed in current. Try this link: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob_plain;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;hb=HEAD On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > Read it here: >> > >> > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >> > >> > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >> > to the git repo if you have access. > The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized words > should not be. I was capitalizing the names of new features to call them out. Too confusing? On 05/12/2017 07:58 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Read it here: > There are a couple of things: > > * target_session_attrs parameter, so a client can request a read/write host > > Most people won't know what that means. I can conclude that it means > that we can now connect to PostgreSQL and say, "please give me a read > only or a read/write host" but I am sure I am not 100% correct. I know > more about PostgreSQL than most who will care about this announcement. The idea is more to get people -- specifically driver and ORM authors -- interested enough to bother looking up the feature. Not to describe it in full, which would take a paragraph. > * WAL support for Hash Indexes > > Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes. Crash safe is good. > > WAL is irrelevant in terms of the announcement. > > New "monitoring" roles for permission grants > > Is roles supposed to be plural? Yes. > > Full Text Search support for JSON and JSONB > XMLTABLE query expression > Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers > WAL support for Hash Indexes > > The order above is going to likely be of more interest to our readers. I > am not suggesting we remove the other items in the list but give > precedence to those that most people will get the most bang for the buck > out of. OK. > > Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers > > What does this mean? (I know what it means), the majority of our readers > will not. If you can come up with a wording here which is clearer but takes one line, be my guest. I was unable to. > Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible > changes. It is critical that all users test it against their > applications and platforms as soon as possible. > > I don't think we need to say anything more than: > > Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a > list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release > notes). I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10 is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0. I'm personally planning to also write a blog post called "break all the things" with even more detail (I was going to contribute this to the main docs, but nobody on -hackers can decide where it should go). -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
On 05/12/2017 09:40 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter: > >> Most people won't know what that means. I can conclude that it means >> that we can now connect to PostgreSQL and say, "please give me a read >> only or a read/write host" but I am sure I am not 100% correct. I know >> more about PostgreSQL than most who will care about this announcement. > > The idea is more to get people -- specifically driver and ORM authors -- > interested enough to bother looking up the feature. Not to describe it > in full, which would take a paragraph. Sure but still, the line doesn't really mean anything. Perhaps: * Driver API for read only or read/write database routing? (I know that's wrong but I think you know what I am getting at. >> * WAL support for Hash Indexes >> >> Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes. > > Crash safe is good. > >> >> WAL is irrelevant in terms of the announcement. >> >> New "monitoring" roles for permission grants >> >> Is roles supposed to be plural? > > Yes. Then let's list them with context. Something like: New roles, x,y and z for monitoring purposes >> >> Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers >> >> What does this mean? (I know what it means), the majority of our readers >> will not. > > If you can come up with a wording here which is clearer but takes one > line, be my guest. I was unable to. Planner support for aggregates on foreign (linked) tables I added linked because it is a term that Oracle and MSSQL DBAs will get. >> I don't think we need to say anything more than: >> >> Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a >> list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release >> notes). > > I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10 > is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this > quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long > before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given > that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users > will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to > point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a > minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of > xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0. We should point out IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL, in the release notes. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
On 05/12/2017 09:40 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter: > I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10 > is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this > quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long > before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given > that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users > will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to > point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a > minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of > xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0. In thinking about this, succinct may be much better: Version 10 *breaks compatibility* with previous versions. See the full details in the release notes at: Or V10 Breaks all the things. See the full details... I know the latter is out of our norm but everybody knows the break all the things meme (especially people that would be willing to beta test). Let's have "a little" fun but make it very clear. (I would not recommend that wording for final release) JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
> On 05/12/2017 09:40 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter: > >> I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10 >> is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this >> quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long >> before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given >> that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users >> will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to >> point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a >> minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of >> xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0. > > In thinking about this, succinct may be much better: > > Version 10 *breaks compatibility* with previous versions. See the full > details in the release notes at: > > Or > > V10 Breaks all the things. See the full details... > > I know the latter is out of our norm but everybody knows the break all > the things meme (especially people that would be willing to beta test). > Let's have "a little" fun but make it very clear. > > (I would not recommend that wording for final release) > +++1 -- Saludos, Gilberto Castillo ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org> wrote:
--
> * WAL support for Hash Indexes
>
> Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes.
Crash safe is good.
Also worth having something there about them now being replication safe? "Crash and replication safe" sounds a bit weird though, but something along that line?
> Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible
> changes. It is critical that all users test it against their
> applications and platforms as soon as possible.
>
> I don't think we need to say anything more than:
>
> Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a
> list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release
> notes).
I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10
is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this
quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long
before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given
that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users
will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to
point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a
minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of
xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0.
None of those are very likely to break *applications*.
Most applications don't talk to the xlog/wal functions. DBA tools and scripts and whatnot *do*, but it is probably worth distinguishing that from applications, because they're also usually different ownership within organisations. It is likely to break more or less all of those though.
And I really doubt protocol v1.0 dropping is going to hit a lot of people.
On 5/12/17 10:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Read it here: >>> >>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >>> >>> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >>> to the git repo if you have access. >> >> The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized words >> should not be. > > As this is a Beta announcement, the capitalization makes sense as a > whole. What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: * WAL support for Hash Indexes * Multi-column Correlation Statistics * New "monitoring" roles for permission grants * Latch Wait times in pg_stat_activity * XMLTABLE query expression * Restrictive Policies for Row Level Security * Full Text Search support for JSON and JSONB * Compression support for pg_receivewal * ICU collation support * Push Down Aggregates to foreign servers * Transition Tables in trigger execution * JIT Query Compilation This is neither a situation where title case is appropriate (nor would it be a correct application thereof), nor are most of these proper nouns. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 05/12/2017 10:03 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 05/12/2017 09:40 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter: >> > >>> Most people won't know what that means. I can conclude that it means >>> that we can now connect to PostgreSQL and say, "please give me a read >>> only or a read/write host" but I am sure I am not 100% correct. I know >>> more about PostgreSQL than most who will care about this announcement. >> >> The idea is more to get people -- specifically driver and ORM authors -- >> interested enough to bother looking up the feature. Not to describe it >> in full, which would take a paragraph. > > Sure but still, the line doesn't really mean anything. Perhaps: > > * Driver API for read only or read/write database routing? (I know > that's wrong but I think you know what I am getting at. How about just "New target_session_attrs parameter"? I'm more concerned with giving users a string which they can search on than a definition. Anything real is going to be too complex for an announcement. >>> * WAL support for Hash Indexes >>> >>> Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes. >> >> Crash safe is good. >> >>> >>> WAL is irrelevant in terms of the announcement. >>> >>> New "monitoring" roles for permission grants >>> >>> Is roles supposed to be plural? >> >> Yes. > > Then let's list them with context. Something like: > > New roles, x,y and z for monitoring purposes No, because that would extend this to multiple lines. The role names are long. > >>> >>> Push Down Aggregates to Foreign Servers >>> >>> What does this mean? (I know what it means), the majority of our readers >>> will not. >> >> If you can come up with a wording here which is clearer but takes one >> line, be my guest. I was unable to. > > Planner support for aggregates on foreign (linked) tables > > I added linked because it is a term that Oracle and MSSQL DBAs will get. WFM. > >>> I don't think we need to say anything more than: >>> >>> Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a >>> list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release >>> notes). >> >> I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10 >> is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this >> quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long >> before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given >> that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users >> will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to >> point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a >> minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of >> xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0. > > We should point out IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL, in the release notes. pgsql-hackers decided that having extra detail in the release notes beyond a listing of compatibility issues was unwanted (and some of these compatibility issues aren't even in the compatibility section). So my plan is to have a list of major items in the announcement, and a later doc somewhere else with detail and examples, likely my blog + the What's New page. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks: > > Read it here: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD > > Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them > to the git repo if you have access. I think the part about "an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible changes" is unnecessarily scary. The number of incompatible changes in the release notes is only slightly higher than in previous releases (10: 19, 9.6: 13, 9.5: 12, 9.4: 22), and half of those are removing ancient junk that no one was using. I get that we want people to test and adjust their applications as early as possible, but how about something like this instead: "Version 10 contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major releases. We encourage all users test it against their applications and platforms as soon as possible." -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 05/12/2017 11:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/12/17 10:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> As this is a Beta announcement, the capitalization makes sense as a >> whole. > > What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: 1. Marketing. 2. Definition of proper noun : a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English 3. When unhappy with #2, see #1 > > * WAL support for Hash Indexes WAL (this one is obvious), Hash (it is a proper noun) Indexes (agreed not needed) Hash indexes are a particular thing as well as a general technology. We are highlighting the particular thing. The rest, I agree there is a few where capitalization doesn't need to occur but as a whole, it is not over the top. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
> On 5/12/17 10:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> Read it here: >>>> >>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >>>> >>>> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit >>>> them >>>> to the git repo if you have access. >>> >>> The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized >>> words >>> should not be. >> >> As this is a Beta announcement, the capitalization makes sense as a >> whole. > > What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: > > * WAL support for Hash Indexes > * Multi-column Correlation Statistics > * New "monitoring" roles for permission grants > * Latch Wait times in pg_stat_activity > * XMLTABLE query expression > * Restrictive Policies for Row Level Security > * Full Text Search support for JSON and JSONB > * Compression support for pg_receivewal > * ICU collation support > * Push Down Aggregates to foreign servers > * Transition Tables in trigger execution > * JIT Query Compilation > > This is neither a situation where title case is appropriate (nor would > it be a correct application thereof), nor are most of these proper nouns. > ¿What there is with functionality multiMaster (pg-XL) in the core? -- Saludos, Gilberto Castillo ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba
On 05/12/2017 11:26 AM, Gilberto Castillo wrote: > > > ¿What there is with functionality multiMaster (pg-XL) in the core? > PG-XL is not PG, it is a fork. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
On 05/12/2017 11:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/12/17 10:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> Read it here: >>>> >>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >>>> >>>> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >>>> to the git repo if you have access. >>> >>> The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized words >>> should not be. >> >> As this is a Beta announcement, the capitalization makes sense as a >> whole. > > What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: This is not proper English it is PR:) > > * WAL support for Hash Indexes > * Multi-column Correlation Statistics > * New "monitoring" roles for permission grants > * Latch Wait times in pg_stat_activity > * XMLTABLE query expression > * Restrictive Policies for Row Level Security > * Full Text Search support for JSON and JSONB > * Compression support for pg_receivewal > * ICU collation support > * Push Down Aggregates to foreign servers > * Transition Tables in trigger execution > * JIT Query Compilation > > This is neither a situation where title case is appropriate (nor would > it be a correct application thereof), nor are most of these proper nouns. > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 05/12/2017 11:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/12/17 10:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> > On 05/12/2017 07:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> >> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> >>> Read it here: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >>>> >>> to the git repo if you have access. >>> >> >>> >> The capitalization in this text is really weird. Most capitalized words >>> >> should not be. >> > >> > As this is a Beta announcement, the capitalization makes sense as a >> > whole. > What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: See my prior response, please. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
On 05/12/2017 11:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Folks: >> >> Read it here: >> >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >> >> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit them >> to the git repo if you have access. > > I think the part about "an unusually high number of > backwards-incompatible changes" is unnecessarily scary. The number of > incompatible changes in the release notes is only slightly higher than > in previous releases (10: 19, 9.6: 13, 9.5: 12, 9.4: 22), and half of > those are removing ancient junk that no one was using. > > I get that we want people to test and adjust their applications as early > as possible, but how about something like this instead: "Version 10 > contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major releases. > We encourage all users test it against their applications and platforms > as soon as possible." Ok, I seem to be outvoted on this. How about this as a compromise: Version 10 contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major releases, particularly renaming "xlog" to "wal" and a change in version numbering. We encourage all users test it against their applications and platforms as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New page for more details. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
> On 05/12/2017 11:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Folks: >>> >>> Read it here: >>> >>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >>> >>> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit >>> them >>> to the git repo if you have access. >> >> I think the part about "an unusually high number of >> backwards-incompatible changes" is unnecessarily scary. The number of >> incompatible changes in the release notes is only slightly higher than >> in previous releases (10: 19, 9.6: 13, 9.5: 12, 9.4: 22), and half of >> those are removing ancient junk that no one was using. >> >> I get that we want people to test and adjust their applications as early >> as possible, but how about something like this instead: "Version 10 >> contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major releases. >> We encourage all users test it against their applications and platforms >> as soon as possible." > > Ok, I seem to be outvoted on this. How about this as a compromise: > > Version 10 contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major > releases, particularly renaming "xlog" to "wal" and a change in version > numbering. We encourage all users test it against their applications and > platforms as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New > page for more details. > In Cuba we are already accustomed to hearing incompatibility between windown versions, Oracle etc. It will sound bad to hear is termino in the Postgresql world. -- Saludos, Gilberto Castillo ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba
> On 05/12/2017 11:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Folks: >>> >>> Read it here: >>> >>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=releases/10/beta/10beta1.md;h=f0d2e6ad2637281194ce212f9b7553eff1301c58;hb=HEAD >>> >>> Please comment with improvements/suggestions/corrections, or submit >>> them >>> to the git repo if you have access. >> >> I think the part about "an unusually high number of >> backwards-incompatible changes" is unnecessarily scary. The number of >> incompatible changes in the release notes is only slightly higher than >> in previous releases (10: 19, 9.6: 13, 9.5: 12, 9.4: 22), and half of >> those are removing ancient junk that no one was using. >> >> I get that we want people to test and adjust their applications as early >> as possible, but how about something like this instead: "Version 10 >> contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major releases. >> We encourage all users test it against their applications and platforms >> as soon as possible." > > Ok, I seem to be outvoted on this. How about this as a compromise: > > Version 10 contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major > releases, particularly renaming "xlog" to "wal" and a change in version > numbering. We encourage all users test it against their applications and > platforms as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New > page for more details. > Version 10 contains a few changes important with prior major releases, particularly renaming "xlog" to "wal" and a change in version numbering. We encourage all users test it against their applications and platforms as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New page for more details. -- Saludos, Gilberto Castillo ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba
On 05/12/2017 11:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 05/12/2017 11:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: > Ok, I seem to be outvoted on this. How about this as a compromise: > > Version 10 contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major > releases, particularly renaming "xlog" to "wal" and a change in version > numbering. We encourage all users test it against their applications and > platforms as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New > page for more details. > I still think it is too long but I do like where you are going. How about: Version 10 is a major release and has backwards incompatible changes. We encourage all users test their applications as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New page for more details. Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
> On 05/12/2017 11:58 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 11:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 5/10/17 20:01, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Ok, I seem to be outvoted on this. How about this as a compromise: >> >> Version 10 contains a few changes that are incompatible with prior major >> releases, particularly renaming "xlog" to "wal" and a change in version >> numbering. We encourage all users test it against their applications and >> platforms as soon as possible. See the Release Notes and the What's New >> page for more details. >> > > I still think it is too long but I do like where you are going. How about: > > Version 10 is a major release and has backwards incompatible changes. We > encourage all users test their applications as soon as possible. See the > Release Notes and the What's New page for more details. > Excuse me, I prefer it. The word: "incompatible" changes for "important" -- Saludos, Gilberto Castillo ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba
On 05/12/2017 11:53 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: > > This is not proper English it is PR:) > Exactly :D -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
On 05/12/2017 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 05/12/2017 11:53 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > >>> What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: >> >> This is not proper English it is PR:) >> > > Exactly :D > > Well, there is the question of: does the capitalization make it clear that I'm calling out feature names, or is it just confusing? -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
On 05/12/2017 01:44 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 05/12/2017 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 11:53 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> >>>> What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: >>> >>> This is not proper English it is PR:) >>> >> >> Exactly :D >> >> > > Well, there is the question of: does the capitalization make it clear > that I'm calling out feature names, or is it just confusing? > Certainly. For example I don't think Indexes needed to be capitalized in the Hash line. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
On 05/12/2017 01:44 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 05/12/2017 12:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 11:53 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> >>>> What is the theory behind the capitalization in any of these phrases: >>> >>> This is not proper English it is PR:) >>> >> >> Exactly :D >> >> > > Well, there is the question of: does the capitalization make it clear > that I'm calling out feature names, or is it just confusing? The capitalization helps as most folks are going to be looking for features that they have an interest in and are probably going to just do a quick scan of the announcement. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 05/11/2017 12:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr. >> >> Please look and suggest any additional improvements. > > There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;). I tried to point in the > right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide > numbers... Since we apparently don't have a name for this feature, it'll just be part of the list in the performance paragraph. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My!
On 2017-05-12 09:40:01 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter:
>
> Replying in one long-ass email:
>
> On 05/11/2017 12:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr.
> >>
> >> Please look and suggest any additional improvements.
> >
> > There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;). I tried to point in the
> > right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide
> > numbers...
If we had that, I'd put it as a major feature ;)
> Can you suggest a different 1-line description?
It's like four relatively large patches (the last being 8868
insertions(+), 6531 deletions(-)), so it's not necessarily easy to break
it down to a 1-line summary, without loosing meaning. Therefore I'd
suggest something general "Significantly improved performance for
analytics queries", unless we want to break those into multiple ones
("faster hashtable for bitmapscan and aggregation", "faster aggregation
when multiple aggregates are used", "faster expression and filter
evaluation"), but that seems a bit excessive...
> Because that's what I got from your slides. What are we actually
> doing differently?
That's why I'd pointed to specific slides and the commit hashes... Part
of that work is committed in v10, part is not.
- Andres
On 15/05/17 08:53, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-05-12 09:40:01 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter:
>>
>> Replying in one long-ass email:
>>
>> On 05/11/2017 12:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>> This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr.
>>>>
>>>> Please look and suggest any additional improvements.
>>> There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;). I tried to point in the
>>> right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide
>>> numbers...
> If we had that, I'd put it as a major feature ;)
>
>
>> Can you suggest a different 1-line description?
> It's like four relatively large patches (the last being 8868
> insertions(+), 6531 deletions(-)), so it's not necessarily easy to break
> it down to a 1-line summary, without loosing meaning. Therefore I'd
> suggest something general "Significantly improved performance for
> analytics queries", unless we want to break those into multiple ones
> ("faster hashtable for bitmapscan and aggregation", "faster aggregation
> when multiple aggregates are used", "faster expression and filter
> evaluation"), but that seems a bit excessive...
>
>> Because that's what I got from your slides. What are we actually
>> doing differently?
> That's why I'd pointed to specific slides and the commit hashes... Part
> of that work is committed in v10, part is not.
>
>
> - Andres
>
>
I'd like the extra detail - a simple one line description seems to hand
wavy!
Cheers,
Gavin
On 05/14/2017 02:21 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
> On 15/05/17 08:53, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-05-12 09:40:01 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Josh, Justin, Andres, Gunnar, Peter:
>>>
>>> Replying in one long-ass email:
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2017 12:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>> On 2017-05-11 12:08:04 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>>> This has been updated with fixes per Andres, Debra, and Petr.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please look and suggest any additional improvements.
>>>> There's not JIT compilation in v10 - I wish ;). I tried to point in
>>>> the
>>>> right direction with the list of commits, and the relevant slide
>>>> numbers...
>> If we had that, I'd put it as a major feature ;)
>>
>>
>>> Can you suggest a different 1-line description?
>> It's like four relatively large patches (the last being 8868
>> insertions(+), 6531 deletions(-)), so it's not necessarily easy to break
>> it down to a 1-line summary, without loosing meaning. Therefore I'd
>> suggest something general "Significantly improved performance for
>> analytics queries", unless we want to break those into multiple ones
>> ("faster hashtable for bitmapscan and aggregation", "faster aggregation
>> when multiple aggregates are used", "faster expression and filter
>> evaluation"), but that seems a bit excessive...
OK added a line in the performnace paragraph: "Analytics queries against
large numbers of rows should be up to 40% faster."
--
Josh Berkus
Containers & Databases Oh My!