From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Draft release notes complete |
Date: | 2012-05-10 12:11:54 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_V6NoQSpEDzArN9g7OJCTne76dusfJvTq0HhRcQwOQgww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
> git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
> minutes, I am still waiting:
"Allow the bgwriter, walwriter, and statistics collector to sleep more
efficiently during periods of inactivity (Peter Geoghegan, Heikki
Linnakangas, Tom Lane)...This reduces CPU wake-ups."
I think that there should be mention of why this is a good thing. When
fully idle the server reaches less than a single wake-up per second,
which I think is a nice, relevant fact. You should add the archiver
and checkpointer to that list, though I suppose you could argue that
the checkpointer, as a "new" auxiliary process, shouldn't count.
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of
the pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of
reviewing it, but he didn't actually contribute any code.
Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter,
index-only scans index-only scans), so that people will understand
that we are now competitive with other RDBMSs in this area? "Improve
performance of WAL writes when multiple transactions commit at the
same time" seems like a pretty bad description, since it doesn't make
any reference to batching of commits. Also, I don't think that the
placement of this as the second to last performance feature is
commensurate with its actual importance. Still, the actual major
feature list is a much more relevant indicator of how it is felt that
individual features should be weighed, and of course that hasn't been
decided upon yet.
"Change pg_stat_statements' total_time column to be measured in
milliseconds (Tom Lane)". Surely this should be under
"pg_stat_statements"?
Does "Make the visibility map crash-safe" really belong under "Performance"?
It's not clear that this isn't just within comments that will be later
removed, but I'd remove all references to "we".
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-05-10 12:24:11 | Re: Draft release notes complete |
Previous Message | MauMau | 2012-05-10 11:45:31 | Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? |