Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lj1xA-0000mV-VZ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:48:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lj1x9-0008R5-N7 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:48:15 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lj1x9-0008Qw-FQ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:48:15 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lj1x7-0008HX-2m for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 May 2021 15:48:15 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lj1x4-00052g-9k; Tue, 18 May 2021 11:48:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 11:48:10 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Peter Geoghegan Cc: Justin Pryzby , Masahiko Sawada , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft Message-ID: <20210518154810.GD30270@momjian.us> References: <20210510060308.GC6088@momjian.us> <20210518140725.GA30270@momjian.us> <20210518144409.GL373@telsasoft.com> <20210518150948.GC30270@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:34:55AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > In my opinion this should be interpreted as already handled by the > backpatch to 13.3, and so not necessary to handle again now -- despite > the GUC thing. It's possible that no users set the GUC at all, because > it wasn't particularly well thought out. This entire situation is > probably unprecedented (we just don't deprecate reloptions very > often), so I defer to your judgement, Bruce. I am thiking the vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor existance in a PG 14 postgresql.conf will throw an error, unlike 13.x, so I do think we need to mention this so people will know to remove it from their postgresql.conf before upgrades, right? I don't think the PG 13.3 release note mention really makes it clear it has to be removed. In a dump/restore, so we retain the reloption vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor and just ignore it, or drop it on restore? I am hoping it is the later. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.