Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/7/25 5:38 AM, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 21:07, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is a draft of the PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement.
>> The goal of this announcement is to introduce the new capabilities
>> planned for PostgreSQL 18 and give users an idea of areas we'd like to
>> see tested.
>>
>> Please check for accuracy and if there are glaring omissions (happy to
>> have the discussion on what to include in here, though note it's not
>> possible to list everything in here). If a description is unclear or
>> there are typos, I'm also happy to modify it; that said, for these
>> suggestions I'm looking for recommendations that bring better clarity to
>> a description vs. nitpicking over phrasing.
>
>> ### Performance
>>
>> [...] There are also numerous performance improvements for how PostgreSQL plans and executes table joins, *from* allowing merge joins *to* use incremental sorts *and* improving the overall performance of hash joins.
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> This has a "from [A] to [B] and [C]" structure, but the 'to' in the
> sentence isn't part of that structure; instead it's part of "allowing
> merge joins *to* use incremental sorts" (we had merge joins and
> incremental sorts before, they just didn't work together yet). This
> caused a double-take on my end.
> I think it would be easier to read if it was instead written as "from
> [A] to [B]" as follows:
>
> [...], *from* improving the overall performance of hash joins *to*
> allowing merge joins to use incremental sorts.
>
> ... optionally with one more such feature added to allow the use of
> "and" in this too.

Thanks - I don't consider something "nitpicky" if the original sentence
is hard to parse. I've reworded it as recommended.

>> ### Upgrading
>
> I'd rename this section to "Upgrade performance", "Upgrade
> experience", or "Upgrade workflow".
>
> Reason: Most new release posts which have a section "Upgrading" which
> contains details on how to upgrade, while this section is about
> improvements in the upgrade workflow of PostgreSQL. This difference
> also initially caused me to skip the section when doing an initial
> pass for fact checks.
>
>
> Hope these aren't too nitpick-y.

Thanks; I took these suggestions.

Jonathan