From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG 10 release notes |
Date: | 2017-04-25 17:57:16 |
Message-ID: | 20170425175716.ne5dgpqfvgefkrxf@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-04-25 13:39:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Understood, but the question is whether the release notes are the right
> place to educate users of something that will no longer be a problem.
I think it's the *prime* place for it. It obviously doesn't matter if
you're not affected by $performance_problem, but if you are affected,
then it's quite likely going to be important. Deciding whether to
migrate to a new version will often be a decision about a *lot* of work,
so it'll not be made lightly, and without a motivator.
If we go by that logic, why are we listing parallelism? Why are we
listing new planner/executor features that lead to faster plans? The
reason we do, is that they're addressing concerns that users had, which
they need to know about.
> I am happy to adjust things to whatever the community wants, but, on the
> other hand I have a responsibility to be consistent what what they have
> wanted in the past.
Why?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-25 18:12:05 | Re: PG 10 release notes |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-25 17:54:56 | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |