Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1smFpa-004MkH-7L for pgsql-advocacy@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 16:59:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1smFpX-00E67L-3o for pgsql-advocacy@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 16:59:35 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1smFpW-00E66r-Jg for pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 16:59:35 +0000 Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1smFpT-000J7D-GR for pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 16:59:33 +0000 Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3df0c4a65baso666531b6e.2 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 09:59:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1725555571; x=1726160371; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8ftWg4a6WJKh3mWMoYLF8/o8qbsizi3JTKRzFkm+Ryc=; b=FJWHr0fMKry+zREpFcaup6sukIj4fh9NEB902beqUC4UGYjqK0GRy7Sn8q7PPWkidu I1bVrg/jB7rz1LXvAboZMpqPp5v2uUHPynjbGDClEkQfRc+ygotdoqHpl4HDaBVPz+Oh 7fLvUYbmiFUgl7JSP4XdG3DXirHEFvyEXBAXMIfdflEkWR9aHMxpLyUpWV5RTKKTEwKH cTegyP+BmsNMWuHVtTRNSxQXAQwEagRmOCWtrWcSG5XMwzQRhSJsMOdgTDF/ddGh06+A he2u8NWVYciVMC/lYYln55654GAvPsUj/7jkP5N255BgpQ5bvmV4USeHUvY1/Qa8pLFv ijuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725555571; x=1726160371; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=8ftWg4a6WJKh3mWMoYLF8/o8qbsizi3JTKRzFkm+Ryc=; b=ZURN5375qGxy+Ny0BxMFp1furUNXbcD1fa5gsJJUqtFJD+uePe1/yLuyW/RO1roOpY HyBZ34AvYOIoGCj21umKYLpoIwLEsekMxJQl/3gg739m/zhMYWPpMTcPX6CayS1Lvnt4 dDoOanhwPrE4qa1+htZUp86689mCVcw0DhqcOGLx3T8l5lNXiNcZRDsykKGOVJrz+aoc 8UyZXKjZnE6ZW0yw2dJiY50Shf0sfbhnk0uaLS2ccc4OvcGnbQWOvCEy8+b1oqovCkue JFut4qxd9LCOff+awoSBRZQh4ljvKCR4le3/refJQYVrUFLIO4WUYKk8bPt3CBk/yZZM U85Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWKH8KnSybbc13Ausgwp1SUMdbGc1dq36hqh9b0hz6EGUhZWcy/kW2gboo5M3UDg1G5vkRUrUvi6314OVjMNw==@lists.postgresql.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzCwlfXM2HukySXlDJgHJhmOs1sOxxh0a+vCWysGBY4hTScERMo ORjTYisYUeYLwCcCPCEqzShty+XM1YJldr0sjUbXOmUcmbCqKEs0WiFRx4vaBsD4rEKMveFbvPR wa8XhuQxszPWtyMfFlqHpXIzplA0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFvlJB4UjKPGA2jyNB2HGgB0sJbYXd/pupnN2KD5Ivgxe1uQwZ16oJjMSn1DZp4eKAaCeXD9/dAX/W7ErAxICc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1385:b0:3d9:3f72:715e with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3df05c461b9mr30670816b6e.10.1725555570744; Thu, 05 Sep 2024 09:59:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <81af1d33-1abb-4ddf-a7e9-859db718281c@postgresql.org> <906be4b7-9066-43db-8047-d34d85dff3ad@eisentraut.org> In-Reply-To: From: Andrew Atkinson Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 11:58:54 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 17 release announcement draft To: Robert Haas Cc: Peter Eisentraut , "Jonathan S. Katz" , PostgreSQL Advocacy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5a50406216236a6" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --000000000000d5a50406216236a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The write operations seem to be under-sold here! These seem very exciting and would be beneficial to all Postgres databases I've worked on. Is this a fair way to reduce the three items mentioned, as much as possible? I'm not proposing they change, but just sort of pushing on building down the items tied to their benefit to the end user as much as possible. Possibly shortening them and making them punchier will help. Faster Write throughput: - "Fewer WAL locks shorter lock lengths" (check this, I'm making it up, but I'm wondering if it's fewer WAL locks, or the locks are held for less time), thus better throughput - "Faster Sequential scans" - is the benefit that they're faster? - "Faster ANALYZE" - is it that ANALYZE runs faster on 17 vs. the same operation on 16? The last point "Allowing extensions to be integrated further." I didn't grab on to as much. I'm wondering if it's something like "new write operation APIs are now available for extension creators" or something like that? On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:49=E2=80=AFAM Andrew Atkinson wrote: > Hi Jonathan. Do you want change proposals here as text snippets in emails= ? > It seems the patch process isn't used here. > > If so, here's an attempted reduction that echoes what Robert said. I also > thought explaining Vacuum wouldn't be necessary for this audience, so les= s > lead-in could work. Is the benefit to end users that there is less memory > and CPU needed by vacuum, thus more CPU and memory is available to their > foreground workload? > > Original: > > A foundational feature of PostgreSQL is [vacuum]( > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/routine-vacuuming.html), which is used > to reclaim storage from data that was marked as removed. Reducing resourc= es > required for vacuuming directly helps other areas of PostgreSQL, > particularly on very busy systems. PostgreSQL 17 introduces a new interna= l > memory structure for vacuum that's shown up to a 20x reduction in memory > and improvements in overall vacuuming speed. > > Proposed: > The PostgreSQL [vacuum]( > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/routine-vacuuming.html) process is > critical for healthy operations, requiring server instance resources to > operate. With PostgreSQL 17, a new internal memory structure for vacuum w= as > used that consumes up to 20x less memory. This improves vacuum speed and > also reduces the use of shared resources, making more available for your > workload. > > > Something along those lines, where the benefit to the user is they could > expect more CPU/mem etc. available for their SQL operations, right? This > could be something folks want to benchmark as well as a reason to upgrade= , > at least for Vacuum-intensive workloads, high UPDATE and DELETE operation= s > etc. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:04=E2=80=AFAM Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 5:22=E2=80=AFAM Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >> > On 04.09.24 23:05, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> > > Attached is the draft of the PostgreSQL 17 release announcement. Thi= s >> is >> > > a draft of the text that will go into the press kit, with the key >> > > portions to review starting from the top of the document, up until t= he >> > > "About PostgreSQL" section. >> > >> > I noticed that we don't yet have a list of major features in the PG17 >> > release notes. We should probably put that in soon, so that what we >> > list there and what is in the announcement are consistent. >> >> +1. >> >> > On the actual list, there will be lots of opinions to be had, but I'll >> > just offer one: I don't think the MERGE RETURNING clause deserves twi= ce >> > as much space as incremental backup. >> >> I agree with that, although obviously I'm biased. >> >> I also feel like this whole thing could just be shorter. If it were >> half as long and mentioned fewer things and those more briefly, would >> we be worse off? I think we might be better off, because it just feels >> wordy to me right now. For example: >> >> A foundational feature of PostgreSQL is >> [vacuum](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/routine-vacuuming.html), >> which is used to reclaim storage from data that was marked as removed. >> Reducing resources required for vacuuming directly helps other areas >> of PostgreSQL, particularly on very busy systems. PostgreSQL 17 >> introduces a new internal memory structure for vacuum that's shown up >> to a 20x reduction in memory and improvements in overall vacuuming >> speed. This release also removes the `1GB` limit on the memory it can >> use (controlled by >> [`maintenance_work_mem`]( >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAIN= TENANCE-WORK-MEM) >> ), >> letting users apply more resources to vacuuming, which is beneficial >> for systems with lots of changes. >> >> It seems to me that the first two sentences could just be completely >> nuked, and everything from "letting users" to the end could also be >> nuked. At least to me, all of that stuff reads as unnecessarily >> filler. I'm not at all sure that removing the 1GB limit on >> maintenance_work_mem is important enough that it needs to be in the >> release announcement -- I agree it's a good improvement, but to have >> it be one of the first things in the press release seems like an odd >> choice from my perspective. Nobody's going to look back on this >> release years from now and say "oh, that was the release where could >> finally set maintenance_work_mem=3D4GB, that was so much better". If >> they think about VACUUM, they'll think about the 20x memory reduction >> stuff which made the ability to configure values larger than 1GB >> irrelevant in the first place. So I'd probably delete the part about >> lifting the 1GB cap entirely. But even if you don't do that, the >> paragraph could be half as long without losing anything, from my >> perspective. >> >> -- >> Robert Haas >> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> >> >> --000000000000d5a50406216236a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The = write operations seem to be under-sold here! These seem very exciting and w= ould be beneficial to all Postgres databases I've worked on.

Is this a fair way to reduce the three items mentioned, as much as= possible? I'm not proposing they change, but just sort of pushing on b= uilding=C2=A0down the items tied to their benefit to the end user as much a= s possible. Possibly shortening them and making them punchier will help.

Faster Write throughput:
- "Fewer WAL= locks shorter lock lengths" (check this, I'm making it up, but I&= #39;m wondering if it's fewer WAL locks, or the locks are held for less= time), thus better throughput
- "Faster Sequential scans&qu= ot; =C2=A0- is the benefit that they're faster?
- "Faste= r ANALYZE" =C2=A0- is it that ANALYZE runs faster on 17 vs. the same o= peration on 16?

The last point "Allowing exte= nsions to be integrated further." I didn't grab on to as much. I&#= 39;m wondering if it's something like "new write operation APIs ar= e now available for extension creators" or something like that?
<= /div>

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:49=E2=80=AFAM Andrew Atkinson <andyatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jonathan. Do you = want change proposals here as text snippets in emails? It seems the=C2=A0pa= tch process isn't used here.

If so, here's an at= tempted reduction that echoes what Robert said. I also thought explaining V= acuum wouldn't be necessary for this audience, so less lead-in could wo= rk. Is the=C2=A0benefit to end users that there is less memory and CPU need= ed by vacuum, thus more CPU and memory is available=C2=A0to their foregroun= d=C2=A0workload?

Original:
> A foundational feature of PostgreSQL is [vacuum](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/routine-vacuuming.html),= which is used to reclaim storage from data that was marked as removed. Red= ucing resources required for vacuuming directly helps other areas of Postgr= eSQL, particularly on very busy systems. PostgreSQL 17 introduces a new int= ernal memory structure for vacuum that's shown up to a 20x reduction in= memory and improvements in overall vacuuming speed.

Proposed:
The PostgreSQL [vacuum](https://www.postg= resql.org/docs/17/routine-vacuuming.html) process is critical for healt= hy operations, requiring server instance resources to operate. With Postgre= SQL 17, a new internal memory structure for vacuum was used that consumes u= p to 20x less memory. This improves vacuum speed and also=C2=A0reduces the = use of shared resources,=C2=A0making more available for your workload.

=
Something along those lines, where t= he benefit to the user is they could expect more CPU/mem etc. available for= their SQL operations, right?=C2=A0 This could be something folks want to b= enchmark as well as a reason to upgrade, at least for Vacuum-intensive work= loads,=C2=A0high UPDATE and DELETE operations etc.





On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:04=E2=80= =AFAM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu= , Sep 5, 2024 at 5:22=E2=80=AFAM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > On 04.09.24 23:05, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > Attached is the draft of the PostgreSQL 17 release announcement. = This is
> > a draft of the text that will go into the press kit, with the key=
> > portions to review starting from the top of the document, up unti= l the
> > "About PostgreSQL" section.
>
> I noticed that we don't yet have a list of major features in the P= G17
> release notes.=C2=A0 We should probably put that in soon, so that what= we
> list there and what is in the announcement are consistent.

+1.

> On the actual list, there will be lots of opinions to be had, but I= 9;ll
> just offer one:=C2=A0 I don't think the MERGE RETURNING clause des= erves twice
> as much space as incremental backup.

I agree with that, although obviously I'm biased.

I also feel like this whole thing could just be shorter. If it were
half as long and mentioned fewer things and those more briefly, would
we be worse off? I think we might be better off, because it just feels
wordy to me right now. For example:

A foundational feature of PostgreSQL is
[vacuum](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17= /routine-vacuuming.html),
which is used to reclaim storage from data that was marked as removed.
Reducing resources required for vacuuming directly helps other areas
of PostgreSQL, particularly on very busy systems. PostgreSQL 17
introduces a new internal memory structure for vacuum that's shown up to a 20x reduction in memory and improvements in overall vacuuming
speed. This release also removes the=C2=A0 `1GB` limit on the memory it can=
use (controlled by
[`maintenance_work_mem`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/runtime-config-resource.ht= ml#GUC-MAINTENANCE-WORK-MEM)),
letting users apply more resources to vacuuming, which is beneficial
for systems with lots of changes.

It seems to me that the first two sentences could just be completely
nuked, and everything from "letting users" to the end could also = be
nuked. At least to me, all of that stuff reads as unnecessarily
filler. I'm not at all sure that removing the 1GB limit on
maintenance_work_mem is important enough that it needs to be in the
release announcement -- I agree it's a good improvement, but to have it be one of the first things in the press release seems like an odd
choice from my perspective. Nobody's going to look back on this
release years from now and say "oh, that was the release where could finally set maintenance_work_mem=3D4GB, that was so much better". If they think about VACUUM, they'll think about the 20x memory reduction stuff which made the ability to configure values larger than 1GB
irrelevant in the first place. So I'd probably delete the part about lifting the 1GB cap entirely. But even if you don't do that, the
paragraph could be half as long without losing anything, from my
perspective.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


--000000000000d5a50406216236a6--