Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 21:21:24 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Alexander Borisov <lex.borisov@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG 18 release notes draft committed
Message-ID: <aBbBFG8Z32ke31sF@momjian.us>
References: <aBQxop9YxQDad8-W@momjian.us>
 <5984af13-423d-41b0-8081-2f7000cfc5b7@gmail.com>
 <aBac_GurPvRTwHfe@momjian.us>
 <c76c3c7c-cd5c-4dd7-ae06-675b4c491567@gmail.com>
 <aBamqwtoDy3yswMR@momjian.us>
 <2a8134a0-3aad-4af5-832d-421d77e3e465@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2a8134a0-3aad-4af5-832d-421d77e3e465@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aBbBFG8Z32ke31sF%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May  4, 2025 at 02:48:31AM +0300, Alexander Borisov wrote:
> 04.05.2025 02:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't warrant its own item because it is not user-facing work.  The
> > best we can do is add the commit to an existing item and add you as a
> > co-author on an existing item.  You will see several items that are that
> > way already.
> > 
> 
> Thank you for clarifying!
> Users are not interested in performance gains.
> Then it's not worth considering. Sorry to interrupt.

So the logic is something I posted to this thread already:

	So, a few things.  First, these set of commits was in a group of 10 that
	I added since there have been complaints in the past that optimizer
	improvements were not listed and therefore patch authors were not given
	sufficient credit.  That means the 209 item count for PG 18 is 10 higher
	than my normal filtering would produce.
	
	Second, looking at the items, these are a case of "X is faster", which
	we don't normally mention in the release notes.  We normally mention
	"faster" when it is so much faster that use cases which were not
	possible before might be possible now, so it is recommended to retest.
	That is what I saw this grouped item as, whereas I don't think the
	individual items meet that criteria.

So, users are interested in performance in the sense it makes use cases
possible, and if your commit is making the case folding useful, we
should mention it in the release notes.  I don't think making it
separate would fit though.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

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