Re: Draft release notes up for review

Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html
Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches?

regards, tom lane

On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html
> Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches?

Major:

Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is, anywhere, so that we
can link it?

Minor:

ECPG or ecpg? Pick one or the other.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html
> > Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches?
>
> Major:
>
> Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is, anywhere, so that we
> can link it?

Is this enough?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-MULTIXACT-WRAPAROUND

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

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 02/16/2014 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Draft release notes for 9.3.3 are committed and can be read at
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-3-3.html
>> Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches?

> Major:

> Do we have an explantion of what a multixact is, anywhere, so that we
> can link it?

Fixed. I did a bit of wordsmithing on the text Alvaro pointed to, too.

> Minor:

> ECPG or ecpg? Pick one or the other.

AFAICS, "ecpg" is the vast majority case in the release notes, so
that's what I've used.

regards, tom lane

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Any comments before I start transposing them into the back branches?

Sorry I'm late.

> Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch)

I'm not familiar with the phrase "Shore up", I think it should use
more precise language: are the privilege checks getting more strict or
less strict?

----

Wow, there are quite a lot of items this time. Have you considered
grouping the items by their impact, for example security/data
corruption/crash/correctness/other? I think that would make it easier
for readers to find items they're interested in. Most changes seem
pretty straightforward to categorize; there are always outliers, but
even if a few items are miscategorized, that's an improvement over
what we have now. Of course someone has to be willing to do that work.

If this warrants more discussion, I can draft out a proposal in a new topic.

Regards,
Marti

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:38PM +0200, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch)
>
> I'm not familiar with the phrase "Shore up", I think it should use
> more precise language: are the privilege checks getting more strict or
> less strict?

Here, "shore up" essentially means "fix." The checks are now stricter. I
will look for more-specific words next time, but I think the paragraph
following that headline illustrates that we fixed overly-permissive checks.

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com