First draft of back-branch release notes is done

Started by Tom Laneover 6 years ago12 messages
#1Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us

See
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/082c9f5f761ced18a6f014f2638096f6a8228164

Please send comments/corrections before Sunday.

regards, tom lane

#2Jonathan S. Katz
jkatz@postgresql.org
In reply to: Tom Lane (#1)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 8/2/19 3:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

See
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/082c9f5f761ced18a6f014f2638096f6a8228164

Please send comments/corrections before Sunday.

While working on the PR, I noticed this line:

"This fixes a regression introduced in June's minor releases..."

Perhaps instead of "June" it could be the specific version number (which
could cause some pain with the back branching?) or the "2019-06-20" release?

Thanks,

Jonathan

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Jonathan S. Katz (#2)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:

Perhaps instead of "June" it could be the specific version number (which
could cause some pain with the back branching?) or the "2019-06-20" release?

Putting in all the version numbers seems like a mess, but specifying
2019-06-20 would work --- or we could say "the most recent" minor
releases?

regards, tom lane

#4Jonathan S. Katz
jkatz@postgresql.org
In reply to: Tom Lane (#3)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 8/4/19 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:

Perhaps instead of "June" it could be the specific version number (which
could cause some pain with the back branching?) or the "2019-06-20" release?

Putting in all the version numbers seems like a mess, but specifying
2019-06-20 would work --- or we could say "the most recent" minor
releases?

That or "previous minor release" would seem to work.

(In the PR I'm putting in the versions it was introduced but we have the
luxury of only having one PR.)

Jonathan

#5Jonathan S. Katz
jkatz@postgresql.org
In reply to: Jonathan S. Katz (#4)
1 attachment(s)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 8/4/19 11:08 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

On 8/4/19 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:

Perhaps instead of "June" it could be the specific version number (which
could cause some pain with the back branching?) or the "2019-06-20" release?

Putting in all the version numbers seems like a mess, but specifying
2019-06-20 would work --- or we could say "the most recent" minor
releases?

That or "previous minor release" would seem to work.

(In the PR I'm putting in the versions it was introduced but we have the
luxury of only having one PR.)

Attached is the first draft of the PR.

Jonathan

Attachments:

20190808updaterelease.mdtext/markdown; name=20190808updaterelease.md; x-mac-creator=0; x-mac-type=0Download
#6Alvaro Herrera
alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
In reply to: Jonathan S. Katz (#5)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

I realize that this has now been sent, but I wanted to comment on one
item:

On 2019-Aug-04, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

* Ensure that partition key columns will not be dropped as the result of an
"indirect drop," such as from a cascade from dropping the key column's data
type (e.g. a custom data type). This fix is applied only to newly created
partitioned tables: if you believe you have an affected partition table (e.g.
one where the partition key uses a custom data type), you will need to
create a new table and move your data into it.

Hmm, if I have this problem, I can pg_upgrade and the new database will
have correct dependencies, right? For some people, doing that might be
easier than creating and reloading large tables.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

#7Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Alvaro Herrera (#6)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

On 2019-Aug-04, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

* Ensure that partition key columns will not be dropped as the result of an
"indirect drop," such as from a cascade from dropping the key column's data
type (e.g. a custom data type). This fix is applied only to newly created
partitioned tables: if you believe you have an affected partition table (e.g.
one where the partition key uses a custom data type), you will need to
create a new table and move your data into it.

Hmm, if I have this problem, I can pg_upgrade and the new database will
have correct dependencies, right? For some people, doing that might be
easier than creating and reloading large tables.

Yeah, that should work.

regards, tom lane

#8Jonathan S. Katz
jkatz@postgresql.org
In reply to: Tom Lane (#7)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 8/8/19 2:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

On 2019-Aug-04, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

* Ensure that partition key columns will not be dropped as the result of an
"indirect drop," such as from a cascade from dropping the key column's data
type (e.g. a custom data type). This fix is applied only to newly created
partitioned tables: if you believe you have an affected partition table (e.g.
one where the partition key uses a custom data type), you will need to
create a new table and move your data into it.

Hmm, if I have this problem, I can pg_upgrade and the new database will
have correct dependencies, right? For some people, doing that might be
easier than creating and reloading large tables.

Yeah, that should work.

I modified the copy of the announcement on the website to include the
pg_upgrade option.

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1960/

Thanks!

Jonathan

#9Alvaro Herrera
alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
In reply to: Jonathan S. Katz (#8)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 2019-Aug-08, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

I modified the copy of the announcement on the website to include the
pg_upgrade option.

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1960/

Ooh, had I thought you were going to do that, I would have told you
about the item ending in a comma :-)

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

#10Jonathan S. Katz
jkatz@postgresql.org
In reply to: Alvaro Herrera (#9)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 8/8/19 2:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2019-Aug-08, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

I modified the copy of the announcement on the website to include the
pg_upgrade option.

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1960/

Ooh, had I thought you were going to do that, I would have told you
about the item ending in a comma :-)

:) I made a quick modification and opted for an "either" at the
beginning of that clause and a capitalized "OR" towards the end.

Jonathan

#11Alvaro Herrera
alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
In reply to: Jonathan S. Katz (#10)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 2019-Aug-08, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

On 8/8/19 2:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2019-Aug-08, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

I modified the copy of the announcement on the website to include the
pg_upgrade option.

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1960/

Ooh, had I thought you were going to do that, I would have told you
about the item ending in a comma :-)

:) I made a quick modification and opted for an "either" at the
beginning of that clause and a capitalized "OR" towards the end.

Oh, heh ... I was thinking of this line:

Fix for multi-column foreign keys when rebuilding a foreign key constraint,

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

#12Jonathan S. Katz
jkatz@postgresql.org
In reply to: Alvaro Herrera (#11)
Re: First draft of back-branch release notes is done

On 8/8/19 2:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2019-Aug-08, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

On 8/8/19 2:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2019-Aug-08, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

I modified the copy of the announcement on the website to include the
pg_upgrade option.

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1960/

Ooh, had I thought you were going to do that, I would have told you
about the item ending in a comma :-)

:) I made a quick modification and opted for an "either" at the
beginning of that clause and a capitalized "OR" towards the end.

Oh, heh ... I was thinking of this line:

Fix for multi-column foreign keys when rebuilding a foreign key constraint,

Oh oops. Fixed :) Thanks,

Jonathan