Re: add list of major features to the v19 release notes

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: add list of major features to the v19 release notes
Date: 2026-09-18 15:52:12
Message-ID: aq1eLOKSnS4Y-xDo@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 07:23:11PM +0800, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> Here's v3 of the major features list. This merges in the changes from the v2
> proposal upthread with the other changes to the list over the past several
> weeks.

Thanks for the patch.

> + New <link linkend="sql-repack"><command>REPACK</command></link> command

nit: extra space before "command"

> + that reclaims disk space and reorganizes table contents, which can help
> + increase query performance. <literal>REPACK CONCURRENTLY</literal>
> + allows repacking without blocking reads and writes to the table.

s/which can help increase/which can improve

> + Logical replication and can now be enabled without a server restart when
> + <xref linkend="guc-wal-level"/> is set to <literal>replica</literal>.

nit: extra "and"

> + Support <quote>read-your-writes</quote> on standbys with the new

Hm. Can we be more descriptive here? Maybe something like "Support for
read-your-writes query patterns on standbys via the new..."

> + <link linkend="sql-wait"><command>WAIT FOR</command></link> command.

Per commits 1a562a2661b and e527bf17d04, I think we're just calling it
"WAIT" and not "WAIT FOR".

> + <link linkend="autovacuum-priority">user-defined prioritization of autovacuuming</link>.

IMHO this makes it sound like users will be able to choose the priority of
each individual table, when we actually are just giving them a handful of
coarse controls. I think we ought to emphasize the scoring system instead.
In theory, most users shouldn't need to adjust anything and the
prioritization will "Just Work" for them.

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2026-09-18 15:58:39 Re: Proposal: Supporting URI SAN in Certificate Authentication
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2026-09-18 15:23:29 Re: Race conditions in logical decoding