From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Detailed release notes |
Date: | 2024-07-26 12:45:20 |
Message-ID: | F8C2CC64-5265-4668-901D-B4A20420EC89@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Jul 2024, at 14:30, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
>
> I'm now using version 14 and planning to update to 17 as soon as it comes available. Then looking carefully to release notes to see exactly what I'll get when updated I see lots of unexplained features. Just because release notes does not explain exactly what that change does. And I don't have a way to get what code or messages generated that feature.
There is a way, but it's not exactly visible from reading the release notes.
> • Allow query nodes to be run in parallel in more cases (Tom Lane)
> Cool this feature, but when and what kind of query will use this ?
Reading the source of the release notes will show a comment which links to the
commit. The source can be seen here:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL_17_STABLE/doc/src/sgml/release-17.sgml
..and the comment for this item is:
<!--
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
2023-07-14 [e08d74ca1] Allow plan nodes with initPlans to be considered paralle
-->
<listitem>
<para>
Allow query nodes to be run in parallel in more cases (Tom Lane)
</para>
</listitem>
This comment tells us the relevant commit is e08d74ca1, which can be found here:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/e08d74ca1
This in turn leads to the mailinglist discussion for this specific feature:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1129530.1681317832@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Daniel Gustafsson
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marina Polyakova | 2024-07-26 12:47:01 | Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-07-26 12:41:05 | Re: fairywren timeout failures on the pg_amcheck/005_opclass_damage test |