From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Darafei Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres 11 release notes |
Date: | 2018-06-21 12:56:10 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtJJC9t17Zxd6WLAc9iSd5ip-SWZt8w-z0cqUwtwdbM6g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:40 PM Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov
> <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 3:57 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
> > <me(at)komzpa(dot)net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I'm not sure it is usefull in release notes since it is more about API, and not
> > >> > user-facing change. Just in case.
> > >> > GiST opclasses now can omit compress and decompress functions. If compress
> > >> > function is omited, IndexOnlyScan is enabled for opclass without any extra
> > >> > change.
> > >> > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/
> > >> > d3a4f89d8a3e500bd7c0b7a8a8a5ce1b47859128
> > >>
> > >> Uh, we do have this for SP-GiST:
> > >>
> > >> Allow SP-GiST indexes to optionally use compression (Teodor Sigaev,
> > >> Heikki Linnakangas, Alexander Korotkov, Nikita Glukhov)
> > >>
> > >> I am unclear how far downt the API stack I should go in documenting
> > >> changes like this.
> > >
> > >
> > > It is also a bit misleading - the idea in that change is that now index representation can be a lossy version of actual data type (a box instead of polygon as a referende, so a changelog entry can tell "Allow SP-GiST index creation for polygon datatype."). There is no "decompression" for such thing. "compression" sounds like gzip for me in user-facing context.
> >
> > +1 that current wording looks confusing. But I think we need to
> > highlight that we have general SP-GiST improvement, not just support
> > for particular datatype. So, I propose following wording: "Allow
> > SP-GiST to use lossy representation of leaf keys, and add SP-GiST
> > support for polygon type using that".
>
> Oh, I missed that we have separate release notes entry for polygons
> indexing. Then second part of sentence isn't needed, it should be
> just "Allow SP-GiST to use lossy representation of leaf keys". If no
> objections, I'm going to commit that altogether with fixes by
> Liudmila.
Wording improvement is pushed. Typo fixes are already pushed by Magnus.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-21 13:23:05 | Re: server crashed with TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!parallel_aware || pathnode->path.parallel_safe)" |
Previous Message | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi | 2018-06-21 12:18:20 | partition table and stddev() /variance() behaviour |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martín Marqués | 2018-06-21 14:53:21 | certificate issue between download and ftp |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-20 15:44:22 | Re: [pgsql-www] Excessive # usage in URLs |