On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 01:24:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Remove pg_dump's --no-synchronized-snapshots option since all supported > > > server versions support synchronized snapshots (Tom Lane) > > > > It'd be better to put that after the note about dropping support for > > upgrading > > clusters older than v9.2 in psql/pg_dump/pg_upgrade. > > Well, I put the --no-synchronized-snapshots item in incompatibilities > since it is a user-visible change that might require script adjustments. > However, I put the limit of pg_dump to 9.2 and greater into the pg_dump > section. Are you suggesting I move the--no-synchronized-snapshots item > down there? That doesn't match with the way I have listed other > incompatibilities so I am resistant to do that.
I'd rather see the "limit support to v9.2" be moved or added to the "incompatibilities" section, maybe with "remove --no-synchronized-snapshots" as a secondary sentence. > > > 0. Add support for LZ4 and Zstandard compression of server-side base > > > backups (Jeevan Ladhe, Robert Haas) > > > 1. Allow pg_basebackup to use LZ4 and Zstandard compression on > > > server-side base backup files (Dipesh Pandit, Jeevan Ladhe) > > > 2. Allow pg_basebackup's --compress option to control the compression > > > method and options (Michael Paquier, Robert Haas) > > > New options include server-gzip (gzip on the server), client-gzip > > > (same as gzip). > > > 3. Allow pg_basebackup to compress on the server side and decompress on > > > the client side before storage (Dipesh Pandit) > > > This is accomplished by specifying compression on the server side and > > > plain output format. > > > > I still think these expose the incremental development rather than the > > user-facing change. > > > 1. It seems wrong to say "server-side" since client-side compression with > > LZ4/zstd is also supported. > > Agreed. I changed it to: > > Allow pg_basebackup to do LZ4 and Zstandard server-side compression > on base backup files (Dipesh Pandit, Jeevan Ladhe) This still misses the point that those compression algs are also supported on the client side, so it seems misleading to mention "server-side" support. > > > Allow custom scan provders to indicate if they support projections (Sven > > > Klemm) > > > The default is now that custom scan providers can't support projections, > > > so they need to be updated for this release. > > > > Per the commit message, they don't "need" to be updated. > > I think this should say "The default now assumes that a custom scan provider > > does not support projections; to retain optimal performance, they should be > > updated to indicate whether that's supported. > > Okay, I went with this text: > > The default is now that custom scan providers are assumed to not > support projections; those that do need to be updated for this > release. I'd say "those that do *will need to be updated" otherwise the sentence can sound like it means "those that need to be updated [will] ..." Thanks, -- Justin
