Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 22:30:17 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
Message-ID: <20190518023017.nkucoc5xgoebtvfw@momjian.us>
References: <830415f7-78ec-ef7b-0f73-0e810ef87f91@postgresql.org>
 <f6225733-51c7-55a3-94fa-0a9f1d4a81eb@postgresql.org>
 <eab862c2-033f-56a8-198f-18427f599096@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAKJS1f-pCFYGq1-go+ZyAR3GisQo-nTD=7E8ykk7Zqm9w+-OkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e19c41f2-0c6a-dd0b-6289-4319005861b6@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20190516182628.kbkiajfnlooocgyg@momjian.us>
 <0cf10a27-c6a0-de4a-cd20-ab7493ea7422@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20190517153653.pmolnulev6imwsn3@momjian.us>
 <CAKJS1f_c8tngWJZjNcQY0KXHWVs4JZxyzoX_cGBEHbaWKUAC=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKJS1f_c8tngWJZjNcQY0KXHWVs4JZxyzoX_cGBEHbaWKUAC=w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 01:38:49PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 03:36, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Yes, it does.  I added this text and moved the commit item:
> >
> >         Avoid sorting when partitions are already being scanned in the
> >         necessary order (David Rowley)
> 
> Thank you for moving that out.
> 
> > I certainly strugged to understand the maze of commits related to
> > partitioning.
> 
> With the utmost respect, because I certainly do appreciate the work
> you did on the release note, I think if that's the case, then it
> should only make you more willing to listen to the advice from the
> people who are closer to those commits.  However I understand that
> consistency is also important, so listening to the heckling of
> individuals sometimes won't lead to a good overall outcome.  That
> being said, I don't think that's what happened here, as most of the
> people who had a gripe about it were pretty close to the work that was
> done.
> 
> FWIW, I do think the release notes should be meant as a source of
> information which give a brief view on changes made that have a
> reasonable possibility of affecting people (either negative or
> positively) who are upgrading. Leaving out important details because
> they might confuse a small group of people seems wrong-headed, as it
> means the people who are not in that group are left to look at the
> commit history to determine what's changed, or worse, they might just
> assume that the thing has not changed which could either cause them to
> 1) Skip the upgrade because it's not interesting to them, or; 2)
> having something break because we didn't list some incompatibility.
> I know you know better than most people that extracting a useful
> summary from the commit history is a pretty mammoth task, so I doubt
> we should put that upon the masses.

No one has suggested new wording, so I don't know what you are
complaining about.  In fact, the wording we have now is by Amit Langote.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +