| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases |
| Date: | 2016-05-08 20:56:57 |
| Message-ID: | 22929.1462741017@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
[ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ]
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs
> rewording.
Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not
sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward.
> Is it worth mentioning the deprecation of exclusive backups in the notes
> introducing non-exclusive ones?
It's not clear to me that we're actually deprecating them; there did not
seem to be consensus on that.
I adopted your other suggestions. Thanks for reviewing!
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Clément Prévost | 2016-05-08 21:12:38 | parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2016-05-08 20:42:29 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |