Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes
Date: 2024-10-08 06:27:19
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JQ5jHLj+5yfWWnTfSUiB-=X0LWH8HB51yO4gG86AjVfQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 6:25 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 06:33:29PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > It is better to write the above statement as:
> > > > "pg_upgrade</application></link> now preserves replication slots on
> > > > publishers and full subscription's state on subscribers". This is
> > > > because replication slots are preserved on publishers. The subscribers
> > > > preserve the subscription state.
> > >
> > > So, as I understand it, this preservation only happens when the _old_
> > > Postgres version is 17+.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Do we want to try and explain that in the
> > > Postgres 17 release notes?
> > >
> >
> > It would be good if we can capture that information without bloating
> > the release document. However, this information is already present in
> > pg_upgrade docs, so users have a way to know the same even if we can't
> > mention it in the release notes.
>
> I have developed the attached patch to mention it is "logical" slots,
> and to mention its future use.
>

LGTM. Thanks!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Denis Laxalde 2024-10-08 06:29:44 Re: Proposal: allow database-specific role memberships
Previous Message Alexander Pyhalov 2024-10-08 06:24:15 Re: Partition-wise join with whole row vars