From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
cc: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: fine tune v11 release notes
In-reply-to: <20181014002711.GJ23241@telsasoft.com>
References: <20181006134249.GD871@telsasoft.com>
 <24ecf60a-851e-35d2-e5d4-458eb645d1b9@postgresql.org>
 <22578.1539462847@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20181013203839.GH23241@telsasoft.com>
 <20181013210430.GA5325@telsasoft.com> <24849.1539466306@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20181014002711.GJ23241@telsasoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
	message dated "Sat, 13 Oct 2018 19:27:11 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1165.1539481533.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 21:45:33 -0400
Message-ID: <1166.1539481533@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 05:31:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've pushed updates merging Jonathan's last with my work.  Please
>> look over what's in HEAD and see if you want to propose additional
>> changes.

> Find attached what's left.

I pushed some of this verbatim, tweaked some others, and left some
spots alone because I thought the existing wording was superior.

Notably, I ended up merging the two items about partitioned indexes and
rewriting them altogether, because it seemed more sensible to present it
that way.  See what you think.

Also, on the point of whether 11d8d72c2 requires a compatibility note,
I did think about that earlier today.  I think it's fine though; the
case in question is so odd that probably nobody's done it anyway.
We don't want the compatibility section to get impossibly long ...

			regards, tom lane