Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Christensen <david+pg(at)pgguru(dot)net>
Subject: Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes
Date: 2026-05-12 12:41:28
Message-ID: CAKAnmmJ=EKBm9RqXiQVLjhnHwK5+ZPVnHkD-QfJLyn6cDE_kig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I can kind of understand why this did not make the cut:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=41d69e6d

(Add labels to help make psql's hidden queries more understandable)

... but I'm in favor (yes, somewhat selfishly to be honest) of listing all
changes, no matter how small. Is there a written criteria or guidelines for
these things? I think the bar is already low if we list things like
"improved tab completion", TBH.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2026-05-12 12:56:26 Re: Bypassing cursors in postgres_fdw to enable parallel plans
Previous Message Aleksander Alekseev 2026-05-12 12:15:31 Re: Review - Patch for pg_bsd_indent: improve formatting of multiline comments