Subject: PG 19 release notes and authors

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 10:50:22 -0400

In the PG 19 commits, I am seeing several commits with Author and
Co-authored-by tags.  FYI, I think we agreed that only the Author names
are mentioned as the authors in the release notes.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.

---

From: Matthias van de Meent <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 17:06:15 +0200

> are mentioned as the authors in the release notes.

If it's not the "Co-authored-by" tag, how else would a project of a
non-committer cooperating with a committer be tagged?

Publicly, the guidance for commit tag usage seems to be [0]
>  "Co-authored-by:" is used by committers when they want to give
> full credit to the named individuals, but also indicate that they
> made significant changes.

Removing that committer's "full credit to the named individuals" seems
out of place to me.

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent
Databricks (https://www.databricks.com)

[0] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Commit_Message_Guidance

---

From: Daniel Gustafsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 17:49:27 +0200

> On 4 Apr 2026, at 17:06, Matthias van de Meent <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Removing that committer's "full credit to the named individuals" seems

Agreed, as a committer I want the persons listed as co-author in the git log to
be credited in the release notes.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

---

From: Andrey Borodin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 23:18:33 +0500

> On 4 Apr 2026, at 19:50, Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Speaking of co-authors - I think they absolutely should be included in the
release notes credits.

The more recognition we give contributors, the more motivation newcomers
have to join the development community. There are edge cases where a feature
gets reverted in a later minor release, but those are rare. What matters
is that we need a steady stream of new contributors, and crediting everyone's
work - including co-authors - is one of the most effective ways to
encourage that.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

---

From: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 12:56:00 -0700

> work - including co-authors - is one of the most effective ways to

+1, and additionally encourages collaboration among contributors.

Thanks,
Satya

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 23:56:01 +0200

> non-committer cooperating with a committer be tagged?

Two Author tags.

---

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2026 18:16:10 -0400

Hi, 

>> non-committer cooperating with a committer be tagged?

That's not how I understood its use so far, and I'm surely not alone in that. We could rephrase this in the wiki page, but we can't go back and edit the commit messages...

Greetings,

Andres

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 19:27:34 -0400

> work - including co-authors - is one of the most effective ways to

This is the same argument we have had for ages, accuracy vs
encouragement.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 19:34:13 -0400

> That's not how I understood its use so far, and I'm surely not alone in that. We could rephrase this in the wiki page, but we can't go back and edit the commit messages...

The wiki page says:

	https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Commit_Message_Guidance
	Author:
	Co-authored-by:
	    Used to indicate the patch authors. "Co-authored-by:" is used by
	    committers when they want to give full credit to the named individuals,
	    but also indicate that they made significant changes.

but I am seeing many cases where there is an Author tag, who is not the
committer, and also Co-authored-by tags in the same message.  That does
not follow the wiki text.

I need to know what to do for PG 19, and what to do for later major
releases.  I think Peter's point is why are people using Author and
Co-authored-by in the same commits, and not just two Authors.

I thought we had this resolved but looking at the PG 19 commits,
obviously not.

To clarify, I assume Co-authored-by would appear in the Acknowledgments
section at the bottom of the major release notes, e.g.:

	https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/release-18.html#RELEASE-18-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

---

From: Peter Geoghegan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:02:40 -0400

> This is the same argument we have had for ages, accuracy vs

If that is the new policy, my policy will be to never use the
Co-authored-by tag, except perhaps for my own name. If I don't think
someone deserves authorship credit, then I just won't list them as an
author in the commit message.

Given how the tag is apparently being interpreted, the only scenario
where it still seems useful to me personally is one where I make
substantial revisions to a patch but, for whatever reason,
specifically do not think I deserve a full authorship credit. Which,
to be fair, doesn't seem too implausible. The need for substantial
revisions isn't an inherently good indicator of whether the original
patch author deserves authorship credit in the release notes.
Performing such revisions probably shouldn't be automatic grounds for
committers to receive a release notes credit.

In such a scenario, where I list myself using the Co-authored-by tag,
the tag is useful because it avoids a weird mixed signal. It would be
strange not to acknowledge that I technically wrote much of the code
in the committed patch; what if my code had a bug that the original
code didn't? At the same time, the tag avoids giving me more credit
than I deserve, which is what I'd want to happen when I choose to use
the tag (I'd want that out of a sense of fairness).

What I'm saying here boils down to this: I don't think it's sensible
to expect the use of a specific tag variant (or even the order in
which author names appear) to convey much useful information. I really
hope nobody reads too much into my choices in this area.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:12:57 -0400

> the tag (I'd want that out of a sense of fairness).

Yes, that was the original purpose.  Basically, if a commit has no
"Author" tag, the committer is assumed to be the author.  If there is an
"Author" tag, the committer is not assumed to be the author.  If there
is an Author tag and the committer wants author credit, they must add
their name as an author.  If the committer wants to indicate they
changed the patch, and potentially added bugs, but doesn't want credit,
the wiki says to use Co-authored-by.

> hope nobody reads too much into my choices in this area.

Well, I don't care what we decide, but we should decide something.  You
can say they don't convey information, but I need to put something in
the release notes, so they are forced to have some effect.

What confuses me are cases where Authors are not the committer and
Co-authored-by are not the committer.  This combination is not
documented in the wiki, which makes me think people are using
Co-authored-by in ways that are inconsistent or I don't understand.

---

From: Peter Geoghegan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:29:15 -0400

On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 10:13 PM Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Yes, that was the original purpose.

I didn't actually know that. That's likely my own fault. (OTOH I
haven't actually used the new tag at all, at least not yet.)

> Basically, if a commit has no

Got it. That makes sense to me (obviously, since I already said that
that's the only policy that could possibly be useful).

> the release notes, so they are forced to have some effect.

I think that Co-authored-by should either: 1. have a specific
mechanical purpose (like affecting how the release notes are written),
OR 2. not exist at all.

What's the point, otherwise? It just doesn't make sense to have a
Co-authored-by that merely conveys a general vibe. These things are
inherently squishy and subjective. Pretending otherwise would be a
mistake (to be clear I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else has
made that mistake).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 22:33:54 -0400

> haven't actually used the new tag at all, at least not yet.)

Yes, that is what I used it for in the past.

> mistake (to be clear I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else has

Yes, that was the argument --- Co-authored-by should have some purpose
because making it behave like Author has little value.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 09:47:10 -0400

> Co-authored-by in ways that are inconsistent or I don't understand.

I now realize I was treating non-committers listed as Co-authored-by the
same as committers being listed.  Someone who is listed as
Co-authored-by made changes to the patch, perhaps adding bugs, but not
someone who should be listed as an author of the release note item.

I just updated the wiki to handle this case because obviously
Co-authored-by is listing more than just committers:

	https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Commit_Message_Guidance#Tags%3A_%22%3A%22
	Used to indicate the patch authors. "Co-authored-by:" should list
	individuals who modified the patch but should not be listed as
	authors in the release notes.

I am not sure PG 19 follows this, but we might want to follow it going
forward.

A larger issue is that since we now have links to the commits in the
release notes, there might no longer be a need to list _any_ names next
to the release note items.

---

From: Álvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 16:09:57 +0200

> 	authors in the release notes.

I don't see in what way this is useful.  Why do you want to suppress
people from getting credit for the work they do?  Having changed the
commit guidance this way, I think no committer would use Co-authored-by
at all.

> I am not sure PG 19 follows this, but we might want to follow it going

More and more I am getting the feeling that the commit guidance is
actually misguided.  The document itself is not very good (I mean, why
use XML-lookalike to represent a commit message, which is regular
English prose??); and I don't feel it represents actual consensus.

> to the release note items.

I don't understand your motivation for saying things like these.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Subversion to GIT: the shortest path to happiness I've ever heard of
                                                (Alexey Klyukin)

---

From: Daniel Gustafsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 16:39:18 +0200

> On 5 Apr 2026, at 15:47, Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> to the release note items.

If we have to discuss on this list abut whom should be credited and who
shouldn't, then it seems a tall order to expect the average reader to have it
figured out.

I think we should continue with the tradition of listing authors.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

---

From: "David G. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 07:47:35 -0700

> commit guidance this way, I think no committer would use Co-authored-by

The ambiguity is whether the committer is an author.  We can either say
committers are not/never implicitly authors so if the committer needs to be
made the/an author they add themselves using an author or co-author line.
Or we let them be implicitly an author if there is no actual author
credited.  In which case co-author lines are needed because the author line
cannot be used.  Regardless, a co-author is always an author - it’s in the
title - and should be listed any place authorship is listed.  The existing
guidance for Author is implicit for the committer.  If there is a real
author noted the committer is not automatically an author.  Whether we’ve
used author+co-author or multiple author lines is immaterial, they
communicate the same basic thing (committer is not an author, and there are
more than one author), at a high level, today.  Maybe in the future we’d
try to distinguish them in practice, but that hasn’t happened in any way
that matters today.

No author, no co-author: committer is sole author
Author+(author and/or co-author)s: committer is not an author, all others
are
Only co-authors: committer is author, as are the co-author(s)

> I don't understand your motivation for saying things like these.

I was under the impression this aspect of producing the release notes is
scripted, in which case I do think it is valuable enough to continue
doing.  I do think we have enough structured data that if we felt our
attribution efforts were insufficient there are more things we could do.
I’m not sure this is the most valuable way to expose this data but it’s a
way, we likely don’t do enough promotion even with it, and it seems low
maintenance.  But maybe there is a cost/benefit discussion to be had here.

David J.

---

From: Joe Conway <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 10:47:50 -0400

> I think we should continue with the tradition of listing authors.

+1

-- 
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

---

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 10:51:25 -0400

Hi,

> > 	authors in the release notes.

I think that is a completely unwarranted change for which there is zero
concensus.

+1

> English prose??); and I don't feel it represents actual consensus.

I think a more useful format would be something that can sensibly get used as
a git commit template (mine has tags I commonly use that I just delete when
not used).

+1

Greetings,

Andres Freund

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 11:10:52 -0400

> I think that is a completely unwarranted change for which there is zero

Indeed.  You exceeded your authority here.

Even if there were consensus about making this change going forward,
the existing commit records were made under a different understanding.
You can't just say you're going to reinterpret them in a way that
excludes giving credit where credit is due.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:37:39 -0400

> excludes giving credit where credit is due.

My email said:

	I need to know what to do for PG 19, and what to do for later major
	releases.  I think Peter's point is why are people using Author
	and Co-authored-by in the same commits, and not just two Authors.

Any changes to the wiki are going forward.  While receiving emotional
replies, I have not received answers to my specific questions.

> Co-authored-by in ways that are inconsistent or I don't understand.

What is the answer, both for PG 19, and going forward?  I need an
answer because I need rules to follow.

I don't have a strong opinion but I do think we need a syntax for
committers to indicate they modified a patch, might have introduced
bugs, but don't want release note author credit, since I think several
people have found that useful.  Is that inaccurate?

I updated the wiki text to now be:

	https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Commit_Message_Guidance#Tags%3A_%22%3A%22
	Used to indicate the patch authors. "Co-authored-by:" should list
	individuals, particularly committers, who modified the patch but
	             ------------------------
	should not be listed as authors in the release notes.

I am updating the wiki text to try to get agreement on how to handle
"Co-authored-by:" because no one else seems to be trying to address that
question.

Another question is, now that we have links to the commits, are the
author names in the release notes only for giving credit, and not for
knowing who was the feature author?  Is that a sufficient reason to keep
the author names in the release notes?  Do other open source projects
have names next to features?

I think those are the open questions.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:40:01 -0400

> English prose??); and I don't feel it represents actual consensus.

I agree I am not a fan of the XML, but Joe Conway introduced it and I
didn't object.

> I don't understand your motivation for saying things like these.

Uh, I am asking if something is still useful due to recent changes and
can be removed as useless.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:57:49 -0400

On Sun, Apr  5, 2026 at 07:47:35AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> made the/an author they add themselves using an author or co-author line.  Or
> we let them be implicitly an author if there is no actual author credited.  In

Yes, if their is no author/co-author, the committer is assumed to be the
author.

> which case co-author lines are needed because the author line cannot be used. 
> Regardless, a co-author is always an author - it’s in the title - and should be
> listed any place authorship is listed.  The existing guidance for Author is
> implicit for the committer.  If there is a real author noted the committer is
> not automatically an author.  Whether we’ve used author+co-author or multiple
> author lines is immaterial, they communicate the same basic thing (committer is
> not an author, and there are more than one author), at a high level, today. 
> Maybe in the future we’d try to distinguish them in practice, but that hasn’t
> happened in any way that matters today.
> 
> Author+(author and/or co-author)s: committer is not an author, all others are

Wow, I never thought that was a valid pattern, but I see a few PG 19
commit messages using that, e.g.:

	Author: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
	2025-08-12 [5f19d13df] libpq: Set LDAP protocol version 3
	
	    libpq: Set LDAP protocol version 3
	
	    Some LDAP servers reject the default version 2 protocol.  So set
	    version 3 before starting the connection.  This matches how the
	    backend LDAP code has worked all along.
	
	    Co-authored-by: Andrew Jackson <[email-masked]>
	    Reviewed-by: Pavel Seleznev <[email-masked]>
	    Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKK5BkHixcivSCA9pfd_eUp7wkLRhvQ6OtGLAYrWC%3Dk7E76LDQ%40mail.gmail.com

Is that what people are using?  A missing Author, and co-authors means
the committer is the author?  Right?  Shouldn't we document this?  That
does give a unique use for Co-authored-by.

> scripted, in which case I do think it is valuable enough to continue doing.  I

The adding of the links is automated.

> do think we have enough structured data that if we felt our attribution efforts
> were insufficient there are more things we could do.  I’m not sure this is the
> most valuable way to expose this data but it’s a way, we likely don’t do enough
> promotion even with it, and it seems low maintenance.  But maybe there is a
> cost/benefit discussion to be had here.

I guess that is my question.  I don't think the author names have the
same practical value now that we have commit links, but if people think
it still has _sufficient_ value, we should keep it --- that was my
question.

---

From: Daniel Gustafsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 16:03:27 +0200

> On 6 Apr 2026, at 15:57, Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> does give a unique use for Co-authored-by.

My online checksums commit use a similar pattern, which is how I had
interpreted our use of it.  It lists myself and Magnus as authors with Tomas
Vondra as co-auhor since he provided substantial changes to the patch.

A missing Author tag should IMO always mean that the committer is the author.

> it still has _sufficient_ value, we should keep it --- that was my

I know from talking to several contributors that seeing their name next to the
feature in the release notes is a huge motivator.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

---

From: Joe Conway <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:04:30 -0400

> I agree I am not a fan of the XML, but Joe Conway introduced it and I

I am by no means married to it -- feel free to improve it however 
everyone prefers.

> can be removed as useless.

I don't think it is useless and I do think it would be a loss in several 
ways to the community. But I also recognize that it takes a great deal 
of effort to do, so I understand why it is worth asking the question.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:05:23 -0400

On Mon, Apr  6, 2026 at 10:04:30AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> ways to the community. But I also recognize that it takes a great deal of
> effort to do, so I understand why it is worth asking the question.

I am not worried about the effort, but rather the additional words that
make the release notes longer.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:29:57 -0400

> replies, I have not received answers to my specific questions.

I now realize the Commit Message Guidance used during PG 19 was unclear;
it was:

I doesn't really say we are giving credit to "Author" individuals but
list committers as co-authors with no credit, so that bad wording is on
me.  It should have said:

	Used to indicate the patch authors.  "Co-authored-by:" is to list
	committers when they want to give full credit to the "Author"
	individuals, but also indicate that they made significant changes.

Again, we now need rules for PG 19, and for the future.  It now says:

Again, that will be changed once we decide what we want.

I think having "Co-authored-by:" mean one thing when "Author" appears
and a different thing when "Author" is missing is too confusing.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:30:58 -0400

> make the release notes longer.

My time is inconsequential considering the time expended by people
reading the release notes.

---

From: "David G. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 07:42:52 -0700

> and a different thing when "Author" is missing is too confusing.

The community hasn’t recognized intermediate contributions between
authorship and reviewer.  Co-Author has always been available for technical
reasons but doesn’t actually convey less status than Author even if some
people intended it to be used that way.  I don’t think we should change
that.  Stating it more clearly seems warranted.

Co-authored never means any thing different than “one of the authors”.
It’s committed-by whose meaning changes in the presence/absence of author.
I likewise don’t see changing that.  For future users of this information,
having a silent boundary at which the meaning/usage of labels changes is
very annoying.

David J.

---

From: John Naylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 21:47:32 +0700

>         individuals, but also indicate that they made significant changes.

That's not how I interpreted it at all, and after seeing commits with
both "Author" and "Co-authored-by" I am equally confused as to how
people are interpreting it.

> and a different thing when "Author" is missing is too confusing.

My take is that the co-author tag has backfired and made things less
clear. If we are using it inconsistently, then it doesn't convey any
useful information. I'd actually rather just use "Author" exclusively
and if there is some further detail that needs to be conveyed, it can
be in the message body.

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:53:03 -0400

On Mon, Apr  6, 2026 at 07:42:52AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> The community hasn’t recognized intermediate contributions between authorship
> and reviewer.  Co-Author has always been available for technical reasons but
> doesn’t actually convey less status than Author even if some people intended it
> to be used that way.  I don’t think we should change that.  Stating it more
> clearly seems warranted.

Okay, I am fine with that, though it does not give committers any way to
indicate via tags that they changed the patch when they don't want to be
listed as author.  They can just state that in the commit text.

> Co-authored never means any thing different than “one of the authors”.  It’s
> committed-by whose meaning changes in the presence/absence of author.  I
> likewise don’t see changing that.  For future users of this information, having
> a silent boundary at which the meaning/usage of labels changes is very
> annoying.

Uh, is this what people want, because it is at least logical and a rule
that can be followed.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:55:22 -0400

> and if there is some further detail that needs to be conveyed, it can

The original intent as I understood it was for "Co-authored-by:" to be
lesser authors, typically the committer, but as you said, we haven't
done that consistently in the past.  Do we want to do it consistently
going forward or just not use "Co-authored-by:"?

---

From: Andrew Dunstan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:56:49 -0400

> and a different thing when "Author" is missing is too confusing.

Possibly. I think we're tying ourselves up in knots needlessly here, 
though. To me, without having to interpret the exact meaning by 
consulting a wiki, Co-authored-by signifies that the person made a 
significant contribution, but not as much as the Author(s). These things 
shouldn't be technical terms of art.

Personally, I'm in favor of being fairly liberal about giving release 
note credits.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 11:03:57 -0400

On Mon, Apr  6, 2026 at 10:56:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Possibly. I think we're tying ourselves up in knots needlessly here, though. To
> me, without having to interpret the exact meaning by consulting a wiki,
> Co-authored-by signifies that the person made a significant contribution, but
> not as much as the Author(s). These things shouldn't be technical terms of art.
> 
> Personally, I'm in favor of being fairly liberal about giving release note
> credits.

So "Co-authored-by:" shows a level of involvement, but doesn't have any
effect on the major release notes.  That works too.

---

From: "David G. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:15:51 -0700

On Mon, Apr 6, 2026, 08:04 Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> though. To
> note

"Liberal" here means give it even for the lesser contributions.  They
should appear in the release notes.

If everyone explicitly lists every author using the author tag for
non-committer-only commits the rule that all authors are equal applies and
we can move one with that preferred wording. Co-authors becomes
unnecessary.  But the usage as it stands historically is that co-authors
are authors and if a commit doesn't have an explicit author the committer
is one.  We can leave that stand as historical and when people fall back on
old habits.

Maybe add Assisted-by if we want to introduce a intermediate level between
author and reviewer.  It does seem we failed to make that be co-author and
redefining should be avoided.

David J.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 11:25:47 -0400

>     effect on the major release notes.  That works too.

Sorry, I meant to say that whether a name is "Author" or
"Co-authored-by:" doesn't matter --- both appear in the release notes.

> 
> "Liberal" here means give it even for the lesser contributions.  They should
> appear in the release notes.

Right, that is what I hear Andrew saying.

> non-committer-only commits the rule that all authors are equal applies and we
> can move one with that preferred wording. Co-authors becomes unnecessary.  But
> the usage as it stands historically is that co-authors are authors and if a
> commit doesn't have an explicit author the committer is one.  We can leave that
> stand as historical and when people fall back on old habits.

Uh, do people actually want to use that?  I would rather not add
complexity unless I hear someone wants it.

> redefining should be avoided.

Uh, yeah, good question.  We can define what we want going forward and I
we have different rules for PG 19.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 11:38:41 -0400

> I think that is a completely unwarranted change for which there is zero

+1. This whole discussion is crazy to me. Every Author and Co-Author
should be listed in the release notes. If there is no author or
co-author named in the commit message, then the committer should be
listed as the sole author; otherwise, the exact list of authors and
co-authors that the committer chose to include in the commit message
should be credited. This wiki update should never have happened, and
should be reverted immediately. I don't even understand why we're
talking about this. You've invented a distinction between Author and
Co-authored-by that not a single committer seems to have ever
intended. It's just a way to indicate that some people did more work
than others, not that the co-authors do not have an authorship
interest. If they weren't supposed to be listed as authors, they would
have been listed as Reviewed-by or not at all.

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

---

From: Jacob Champion <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:43:00 -0700

> people are interpreting it.

In case it helps, here's what I had always assumed the meanings were
without consulting the wiki, with links to commits I've made so you
can roast my usage.

- "Author" overrides the default assumption, which is that the
committer was the author of the patch: https://postgr.es/c/a6483f5ac
- "Co-authored-by" lists co-authors, who share attribution in some
unspecified way. (GitHub adds a weak mechanical effect to this tag.)
https://postgr.es/c/993368113
- Some people list multiple Author: lines as an alternative to
Co-authored-by:, which never particularly bothered me.
- If attribution is more complex than that, people just say that in
the body of the message: https://postgr.es/c/c2bca7cc9

In particular, if I don't want official "credit" in the release notes
for minor changes I made to a patch during commit, I don't need to add
any tag at all. I just mention that I changed the patch, following a
style I've seen from Tom and others: https://postgr.es/c/e020a897e

> useful information.

It conveys *attribution*, regardless of whether or not it's used
consistently for a mechanical purpose. I'm willing to bet that "I
coauthored this patch" has intuitive meaning to most people, inside
and outside this project.

I'm glad the momentum appears to be in favor of keeping that
attribution, because the idea that we'd retroactively discard it
seems... misguided, to me. This is going to be fuzzy in complex cases,
but it's okay to just write the complexity longhand when needed,
right?

--Jacob

---

From: "Jelte Fennema-Nio" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:46:55 +0200

> "Co-authored-by:" doesn't matter --- both appear in the release notes.

+1. Reading the discusssion it sounds like committers intended for
people in Co-authored-by to be listed in the release notes. And I don't
think there's consensus to change that for future commits. 

> We can define what we want going forward and I we have different rules
> for PG 19.

Crazy idea: One option for what we could do going forward is use the
Author header field of the commit for the actual author, instead of
having that field always contain the same as the Committer header field.
Then we'd only put the committer details in the Committer header field
(unless the committer is also the author). So basically, not have an
Author footer field anymore. But only Co-authored-by in the footer if a
patch has more than one author.

Using Author in the header instead of the footer has the benefit of
actually being recognized by other tools like GitHub, just like
Co-authored-by is recognized in the footer. Right now, on GitHub a
non-committer author only shows up if they are listed as Co-authored-by,
not as Author. For instance, on this commit[1] the avatars and usernames
for both Heikki and Ashutosh are listed, because Ashutosh is listed in
Co-authored-by. But in this commit[2] where Bertrand is listed using the
Author footer tag, only Michael is shown in the GitHub UI.

[1]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/283e823f9dcb03d0be720928b261628af06d3fd4
[2]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/557a9f1e3e62894cc3302eda72d9df091d72f37b

---

From: Jacob Champion <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:55:19 -0700

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:09:41 -0400

On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 11:55 AM Jacob Champion
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> From a mechanical perspective, that has clear advantages to me
> (especially with the de facto GitHub interpretation), but I think it'd
> collide with our practice of rewriting commits to maintain project
> voice. Maybe people could get used to that change, but I generally
> expect the Author in the Git metadata to be the *literal* author of
> the commit message.

Yes, I think that's right. I would have no problem us allowing pushing
of commits under the actual author's name if the commit is pushed
unchanged, but I rarely push anything unchanged and I think people
would be very quickly become unhappy if I started doing so. In the
rare cases where that would be warranted, the person usually just gets
made a committer anyway.

But really, that's a discussion for another time. The discussion here
is whether we're going to interpret the authorship information in the
existing commits in the way that the committers who created those
commits intended, or whether, as Bruce proposes, we're going to do
something else.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:17:31 -0400

> the body of the message: https://postgr.es/c/c2bca7cc9

What you have said above is the way I think most committers have done it
for PG 19.  If some have not, it would be good to tell me now.  Also, if
we want to change it going forward, that would be good to know.

> style I've seen from Tom and others: https://postgr.es/c/e020a897e

Yes, I have seen that.

> but it's okay to just write the complexity longhand when needed,

Yes.

---

From: Daniel Gustafsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 18:17:59 +0200

> On 6 Apr 2026, at 18:09, Robert Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Agreed.  And we'd have similar discussions around attribution since there is
only a single Author in Git.  What if two people did equal amount of work, whom
to place as Author?

> But really, that's a discussion for another time.

+INT_MAX

--
Daniel Gustafsson

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:27:52 -0400

> non-committer author only shows up if they are listed as Co-authored-by,

Yes, I remember that benefit of Co-authored-by.

---

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:37:39 -0400

Hi,

> replies, I have not received answers to my specific questions.

Characterizing people disagreeing with you documenting a new, widely-disagreed
with, interpretation of Co-authored-by, while not going into all that much
detail about some questions you raised, as "emotional replies", does not seem
helpful.

Expecting detailed responses while other folks are working on getting stuff
committed before the feature freeze also seems like a bit much. And again,
that seems unrelated to the complain here that you're unilaterally making
decisions.

> answer because I need rules to follow.

I think the answer is for you to roll back your changes, assume co-authorship
means co-authorship, and then, if you think we need another tag, start a
discussion about how what tag to use for "blame-but-no-credit-goes-to" going
forward. I would strongly recommend starting that discussion only once we're
well into the betas for 19, because it's just going to sow confusion if we
consider doing anything like this while still doing 19 stuff.

> people have found that useful.  Is that inaccurate?

I for one don't believe that's needed.  Committers always are to co-blame for
stuff they commit, so when do you need to express blame-but-no-credit-goes-to?

> 	individuals, particularly committers, who modified the patch but

Documenting an new understanding is not getting a handle on the current
understanding. That makes absolutely no sense.

> knowing who was the feature author?

I don't see what the distinction you're making here is.  Either the
co-authored-by person contributed substantially, or they shouldn't have been
named as a co-author.

> Is that a sufficient reason to keep the author names in the release notes?

It seems pretty crucial to me. We want people to make a living working on
postgres. For that they need to be known to have contributed to
postgres. Giving credit for nontrivial work is a huge part of that.

> Do other open source projects have names next to features?

Many do.

> I think those are the open questions.

I don't actually see any open questions here.  You wanted to radically
reinterpret something for, as far as I can tell, no reason whatsoever, and
unsurprisingly got pushback. That's it.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

---

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:39:05 -0400

Hi,

> Yes, I remember that benefit of Co-authored-by.

That fundamentally conflicts with your re-interpretation of it, doesn't it? It
being recognized by github is an argument for using it as the primary tool of
non-committer attribution, whereas you want to use it to list people that
should not be credited with the change.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:41:34 -0400

> have been listed as Reviewed-by or not at all.

Uh, the original wiki text is from a discussion on
[email-masked] with subject "determining
the primary author of a commit" that happened around November 2024 to
March 2025.  Unfortunatly there is no public archive of that
discussion.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 12:42:04 -0400

> should not be credited with the change.

Yes, it does conflict.  I was just saying I remember it was part of the
2024 discussion.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:03:08 -0400

> that seems unrelated to the complain here that you're unilaterally making

Uh, I am also working on getting the PG 19 release note ready, so I at
least needed to know what the PG 19 rules should be.  I could not wait
for after the feature freeze date.

> consider doing anything like this while still doing 19 stuff.

Uh, just to clarify, these are changes made on January 8, 2025, and were
discussed on [email-masked], that need to
be changed:

	https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Commit_Message_Guidance&diff=40351&oldid=40350

I have updated the text to now be:

	Used to indicate the patch authors. If no "Author" or
	"Co-authored-by" is listed, the committer is assumed to be
	the author.

> stuff they commit, so when do you need to express blame-but-no-credit-goes-to?

True.  I don't really care what the rules are.  I was only emailing to
say what I thought the rules we agreed on last year don't match the
commit messages, so I need to know the rules.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:05:18 -0400

> March 2025.  Unfortunatly there is no public archive of that

Sure, but many committers who were part of that discussion have
commented on this thread, and all of them except for you seem to agree
on what should happen here, as do all of the people who have commented
who were not party to that discussion. If you had started out this
conversation by saying "when there are both Author and Co-authored-by
tags, how am I supposed to credit that in the release notes?" and
accepted the answer you got back, I don't think anybody would be
annoyed. But now you're getting frustrated responses from a bunch of
people because you keep insisting that it must be everyone else who is
mistaken: you keep suggesting that I (and all the other committers who
have commented) misunderstood the earlier thread and the rules for
commit messages, rather than concluding that you might have been the
one who misunderstood.

It is fair to say that you need to know what the rules are, but I
really don't understand how it could be any more clear at this point
what people expect to have happen.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:20:00 -0400

> commit messages, rather than concluding that you might have been the

I am frustrated because I thought we had a rule agreed upon in January
2025, and now I am told I was wrong.  At the time, some committers did
say they wanted my interpretation, and I want to honor them in trying to
stand up for their old messages in this thread.  Personally, I don't
care what the rules are.

What I don't want to do is to religitate this again, and usually if we
ignore what people said in the past, they will show up at some later
time to try to undo what we are doing now.

> what people expect to have happen.

I am confused how this was not clear in the January 2025 discussion and
why people didn't mention they didn't like it then.  I can't quote
anything from anyone but myself from a private email, so here is some
text by me to you:

	I started using Co-Author as a way to indicate that the Co-Author
	wrote some of the patch, but I modified it enough that I don't want
	to attribute/blame the work entirely on the Co-Author.	Are you
	saying when that happens, I should name myself also as a Co-Author?

I am now thinking it is the wiki page text that was unclear because it
makes no mention of the release notes, which is why no one complained at
the time.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 14:31:16 -0400

>         saying when that happens, I should name myself also as a Co-Author?

I just don't understand what that has to do with the present
situation. The answer to the question you quote here was "yes", but it
doesn't touch on the present question, which is what happens when
there are both 1 or more Author: tags and also 1 or more
Co-authored-by: tags. The unanimous answer from everyone here, except
you, is that all those names should be listed as authors for release
notes purposes. I still don't understand how or why the previous
discussion led you to any other conclusion. I think we were really
clear that the committer must list themselves as an author or
co-author if they wish to be so credited, and if they don't, the
authors are exactly as named. The only thing we're adding to that now
is that if there's a mix of author and co-author tags, that
distinction is to be ignored for release note purposes. I think the
reason that wasn't discussed previously is because people just assumed
that was the only reasonable outcome. I mean, if commit #1 says
Co-authored-by: Fred Co-authored-by: Bob and is credited as (Fred,
Bob), and commit #2 says Author: Fred, Co-authored-by: Bob, how would
anyone justify crediting the second one as just (Fred)? If
Co-authored-by was good enough to justify mentioning the name in the
first case, it must be in the second case as well.

To be fair, I don't think this is a perfect answer. I mean, I have had
situations in the past where I (let's say) push 40 commits consisting
of 20,000 lines of code to implement some feature. You (rightly)
bundle all those into a single release note entry. Out of those 40
commits, one small commit (say, 150 lines) was written jointly by me
and another person. When the release notes come out, the authors of
the overall feature are me and that other person. Somehow, that feels
like it grossly overstates the contribution of that other person, and
I have been known to be a little miffed about it. However, as others
have already pointed out, it's better to be generous in crediting
other people than not, so I think it is the right answer for the
project despite my occasional pique. At the end of the day, the
chances that people know that Robert Haas contributes a bunch of stuff
to PostgreSQL are pretty good; the chances that they know that the
other person also contributes are not as good. Therefore, it's more
important not to understate that person's contribution than it is to
not understate mine. If somebody really wants to know what happened,
they can click through to the commits, and from there to the mailing
list discussions.

---

From: Amit Kapila <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 17:24:52 +0530

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 12:01 AM Robert Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> notes purposes.

+1. This is my understanding as well.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.