MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <20190517153653.pmolnulev6imwsn3@momjian.us>
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 13:38:49 +1200
Message-ID: 
 <CAKJS1f_c8tngWJZjNcQY0KXHWVs4JZxyzoX_cGBEHbaWKUAC=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
 pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services