9.3 Beta1 status report

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: 9.3 Beta1 status report
Date: 2013-05-02 22:03:58
Message-ID: CAMkU=1yrhXYpLV_SNYXeXqPagGgB5z7Um9uPa4eJqCsyTi9sTg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3
> beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change,
> but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release
> notes, which you can view here:
> http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-3.html
> I will be working on polishing them for the next ten days, so any
> feedback, patches, or commits are welcome. I still need to add lots of
> SGML markup.

Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity:

<para>
Add cache of local locks (Jeff Janes)
</para>

<para>
This speeds lock release at statement completion in transactions
that hold many locks; it is particularly useful for pg_dump.
</para>

I think this is equally important for restoration of dumps, if the
restoration is run all in one transaction. (Making the dump and restoring
it have similar locking and unlocking patterns)

<para>
Split pgstat file in per-database and global files (Tomas Vondra)
</para>

<para>
This reduces the statistics management read and write overhead.
</para>

Should be "split pgstat file into", not "split pgstat file in"

Also, should it mention that the overhead reduction is particular to when a
cluster has a large number of databases?

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mark.kirkwood 2013-05-02 22:19:18 Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-05-02 22:00:03 matview niceties: pick any two of these three