| 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
| 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 |