Re: PostgreSQL 13 RC 1 release announcement draft

On 9/16/20 1:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-09-15 18:10, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> To upgrade to PostgreSQL 13 RC 1 from Beta 3 or an earlier version of >> PostgreSQL 13, you will need to use a strategy similar to upgrading >> between >> major versions of P

Re: PostgreSQL 13 RC 1 release announcement draft

On 9/16/20 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:34 PM Jonathan S. Katz >> wrote: >>> We've typically recommended doing the pg_upgrade since they may be >>> coming from a version with a lower catversion. I can chang

Re: PostgreSQL 13 Release Timeline

On 9/10/20 1:08 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/2/20 2:13 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> * PostgreSQL 13 Release Candidate 1 (RC1) will be released on September >> 17, 2020. >> >> * In absence of any critical issues, PostgreSQL 13 will become ge

Re: PostgreSQL 13 Release Timeline

On 9/24/20 10:11 AM, James Coleman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:30 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> >> I am pleased to report that PostgreSQL 13 is now GA: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/2077/ > > I'm not sure if there was a "release

PostgreSQL 11 Beta 1 Release: 2018-05-24

Hi, The Release Management Team is pleased to announce that the release date for PostgreSQL 11 Beta 1 is set to be 2018-05-24. We’re excited to make the Beta available for testing and receive some early feedback around the latest major release of PostgreSQL. Please let us know if you have any qu

Re: Draft release notes are up

> On May 4, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:00:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> + >> + >> + >> + Support building with Microsoft Visual Studio 2015 (Michael Paquier) >> + > >> This will only be part of release-9.5.sgm

Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4

> On May 10, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Douglas Doole writes: >> The release notes say: >> ALTER FUNCTION pg_catalog.ts_rewrite(tsquery, tsquery, tsquery) PARALLEL >> UNSAFE; > >> But when I pull pg_proc.h from 10.4, I find: >> DATA(insert OID = 3684 ( ts_rewrite PGNSP PGUID 12 1

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

> On May 10, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2018-05-10 12:18:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Next question is what to do with this. Do we want to sit on it till >>> v12, or sneak it in now? > >> Is there a decent argument for sneaking it in? I don't really ha

Re: Make description of heap records more talkative for flags

> On May 15, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-05-15 13:44:58 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2018-Apr-23, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >>> Now, frankly, this being mostly a debugging tool, I think it would be >>> better to have the output as complete as we can. Otherwise, whe

Re: Removing unneeded self joins

> On May 16, 2018, at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2018-05-16 12:26:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Also, I'm not sure that I believe that it's always easy to avoid >> generating such queries. > > Yea. There's obviously plenty cases where ORMs just want to make the > database h

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On May 11, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 11 release notes. I > will add more markup soon. You can view the most current version here: > > http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-11.html > > I expect a torrent of feedback. ;

Re: PG 11 feature count

> On May 18, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-May-17, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> 9.5 200 >> 9.6 220 >> 10 194 >> 11 167 > > Just yesterday Andres was telling us that pg11 has so much new stuff, > when compared to 9.5 and 9.6, that seemed

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On May 21, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >> Per feedback from many asynchronous threads, attached is the proposed >> patch for the list of major features. I also expect a torrent of feedback. I >> will have a correspo

Re: Add PostgreSQL 11 to feature matrix page?

> On May 24, 2018, at 9:38 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > Now that PostgreSQL 11 beta is out, I wonder if it's worth to add > PostgreSQL 11 to the feature matrix page. > > https://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix/ > > Adding PostgreSQL 11 to the page will give users at-a-glance-dfference >

Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning

> On May 25, 2018, at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Maybe it's all right to decide that this rejiggering can be left > for v12 ... did we promise anyone that it's now sane to use thousands > of partitions? Per beta release, we’ve only said “improved SELECT query performance due to enhanced parti

SP-GiST failing to complete SP-GiST index build

Hi, While preparing for an upcoming presentation, I was playing around with SP-GiST indexes on tstz ranges and was having an issue where some would fail to build to completion in a reasonable time, especially compared to corresponding GiST builds. Version: PostgreSQL 10.4 on x86_64-apple

Re: SP-GiST failing to complete SP-GiST index build

> On May 27, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Instrumenting the test case suggests that getQuadrant pretty much always >> returns 1, resulting in a worst-case unbalanced SPGiST tree. I think this >> is related to the fact that the

Re: Add CONTRIBUTING.md

> On May 29, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >>>A lot of people contribute in communities via github these days. We >>>should add a CONTRIBUTING.md that explains how to do so, given that we >>>don't use github. That's shown automatically when doing a pull requests >>>et

Re: Add CONTRIBUTING.md

> On Jun 1, 2018, at 6:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Jun-01, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> This would also coincide well with the content we want to move from >> the wiki to www. > > What content is that? Per a discussion at the developer meeting, bas

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: >> Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in >> two days my time (Thursday afternoon in Tokyo) if there are no >> objections, so as anybody has hopefully time to argue back. > > I think we

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: > > >> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in >>> two days my ti

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> I'll volunteer for CFM, which seems appropriate since I was one of the >> supporters of having an extra CF. > > I don't mind helping out either. There are many patches t

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On Jun 9, 2018, at 4:35 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Bruce Momjian > wrote: > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 11 release notes. I > will add more markup soon. You can view the most current version here: > >

PostgreSQL 11 Beta 2 Release: 2018-06-28

Hi, The Release Management Team is pleased to announce that the release date for PostgreSQL 11 Beta 2 is set to be 2018-06-28, which is roughly a month after Beta 1 released. We appreciate everyone’s diligent effort fixing open issues[1] and we hope to get even more closed before the Beta 2 relea

Re: pg_config.h.win32 missing a set of flags from pg_config.h.in added in v11 development

> On Jun 3, 2018, at 4:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:20:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas writes: >>> On 02/06/18 17:09, Tom Lane wrote: More concerning is that RHEL6 is on 1.0.1e: >> >>> I was only thinking of requiring 1.0.2 on Windows. >>

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> One thing I noticed might be an improvement is to skip >> build_joinrel_partition_info if the given joinrel will be to have >> consider_partitionwise_join=false; in the previous pa

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2018-08-12 08:51:28 +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote: >> Peter, Tom, >> >> Would it be possible for you to review the following two questions? Some >> assertions have been made in this thread about the new stored procedures >> (suppo

Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures?

> On Aug 10, 2018, at 4:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 09/08/2018 20:25, Vik Fearing wrote: >> On 09/08/18 20:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 09/08/2018 19:57, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: I just noticed that when I called a procedure that commits and rollbacks - the x

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

Hi Dian, > On Aug 15, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Dian Fay wrote: > > hi all! I discovered today that the REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW documentation > doesn't mention that only the owner (or a superuser) may actually perform the > refresh operation. This patch adds a note to that effect. I played around w

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 09:06:34PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> I played around with this feature a bit and did see this was the case. >> Also while playing around I noticed the error message was as such: >&

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

> On Aug 16, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 09:06:34PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> I played around with this feature a bit and did see

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dave Cramer writes: >> So it seems this patch is being ignored in this thread. > > Well, Jonathan did kind of hijack what appears to be a thread about > documentation (with an already-committed fix). I apologize if it was interpreted as hijac

Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

Hi,I Initially pointed out here[1] that running REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW as anon-superuser or table owner yields the following message:    test=> REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW blah;    ERROR: must be owner of relation blahThe error message should say "...owner of materialized view..."The attached patc

Re: Pre-v11 appearances of the word "procedure" in v11 docs

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > Attached are my proposed patches. The first is the documentation > change, which basically just substitutes the words, with some occasional > rephrasing. And then patches to extend the syntaxes of CREATE OPERATOR, > CREATE TRIGGER,

Re: Fix hints on CREATE PROCEDURE errors

> On Aug 8, 2018, at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> Yes, the hint should be changed. But I also think the error message >> should be changed to be more appropriate to the procedure situation >> (where is the return type?). Attached patch does both. Unlike your >> pa

Re: Fix hints on CREATE PROCEDURE errors

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > This has been committed. Thanks - I’ve moved it off of the open items list. Jonathan signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:26 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Jonathan S. Katz <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>> wrote: > It’s cosmetic, but it’s a cosmetic bug: it incorrectly tells the user that > they > must be the owner of the “re

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dave Cramer writes: >> This is a simple fix why push back ? > > What was being pushed back on, I think, was the claim that this needed to > be back-patched. I'd be inclined not to, since (a) the message is not > wrong, only less specific than

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Aug-17, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I Initially pointed out here[1] that running REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW as a >> non-superuser or table owner yields the following message: >&g

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:38:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dave Cramer wrote: >>> I was referring to: >>> >>> "Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one >>> of man

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:I am not so sure about v11 as it is very close to release, surely we cando something for HEAD as that's cosmetic.  Anyway, if som

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 11:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Aug-18, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> >>> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:

Re: Pre-v11 appearances of the word "procedure" in v11 docs

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 18/08/2018 19:37, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> I reviewed the patches, here are my comments. > > Committed all three with some adjustments. Thanks. Awesome, thanks! I removed the open item. Jonathan s

Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2018-04-18 18:37:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Not convinced that that is true - the issue is more likely that JIT work in >>> workers is counted as execute time...

Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 2:58 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > > På onsdag 22. august 2018 kl. 20:52:05, skrev Andres Freund > mailto:and...@anarazel.de>>: > On 2018-08-22 19:51:12 +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > > I thought JITing of prepared queries happended once (in "prepare") > > No, i

Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-08-22 18:29:58 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> >>> On Aug 22, 2018, at 2:58 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh >>> wrote: >>> >>> På onsdag 22. august 2018 kl. 20:52:05, skrev Andres F

Re: Memory leak with CALL to Procedure with COMMIT.

> On Aug 23, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > I think I've found a reasonable fix for this. > > The problem arises with the combination of CALL with output parameters > and doing a COMMIT inside the procedure. When a CALL has output > parameters, the portal uses the strategy PO

Re: Memory leak with CALL to Procedure with COMMIT.

> On Aug 27, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 23/08/2018 17:35, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> Applied the patch against head. make check passed, all the tests I ran >> earlier in this thread passed as well. >> >> Reviewed the code - looks to

Re: FailedAssertion on partprune

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 2:49 AM, David Rowley > wrote: > > On 17 August 2018 at 06:52, Robert Haas wrote: >> I don't know whether there's actually a defect here any more. I was >> trying to dispel some perceived confusion on the part of David and Tom >> about what this code was trying to accomp

Re: Something's busted in plpgsql composite-variable handling

> On Aug 26, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I wrote: >> [ dropping and recreating a composite type confuses plpgsql ] >> That's not very nice. What's worse is that it works cleanly in v10, >> making this a regression, no doubt caused by the hacking I did on >> plpgsql's handling of compo

Re: Something's busted in plpgsql composite-variable handling

> On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > 2018-08-28 16:38 GMT+02:00 Jonathan S. Katz <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>>: > > > On Aug 26, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane > <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > > > >

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

> On Aug 24, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: > > (2018/08/24 11:47), Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:00:49PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>> I tried this today, but doing git behind the corporate firewall doesn't >>> work. I don't know the clear cause of that, so

Re: Something's busted in plpgsql composite-variable handling

On 8/28/18 12:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2018-08-28 17:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan S. Katz <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>>: > > >> On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule >> mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

On 8/31/18 7:54 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > (2018/08/30 20:25), Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> (2018/08/29 18:40), Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>> (2018/08/29 0:21), Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>>>> On Aug 24, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Etsuro >>>>> Fujita wrote: >>&g

Re: FailedAssertion on partprune

On 8/29/18 1:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: >> On behalf of the RMT, I just want to make sure this keeps moving along. >> It sounds like the next step is for Robert to verify that [3] is the >> expected >> beha

PostgreSQL 11 {Beta 4, RC1} Release: 2018-09-20

Hi, We are planning to have another release of PostgreSQL 11, either Beta 4 or RC1, next week on Thursday, 2018-09-20. The version will be determined based on the state of the open items list[1] around the time of stamping. Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_11_Ope

Re: Defaulting to jit=on/off for v11

On 9/14/18 6:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> I can see basically three sensible routes to go for v11 (before we >> improve further): > >> 1) Leave it enabled, as currently. > >> 2) Disable it by default in v11, leave it enabled in master. > >> 3) Increase the costs substantial

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

xplanation after). Thanks, Jonathan From 2733f0df599aeda48408a3d27b796e36fbdd6fc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Jonathan S. Katz" Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 10:43:44 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Updates to major improvements section of release notes. --- doc/src/sgml/release-11.sgml | 47

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

n whether a.k.a (also known as) is familiar enough to our > readers to appear in the releaes notes. I think the "a.k.a." can be > simply removed. Fine by me. I've reattached the patches. Thanks, Jonathan From c0a40e7831b19f75178a45d8db00f5e91d606e33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

luding/not including that in the release notes, but I've attached a patch that drops the clarification. Thanks, Jonathan From c0a40e7831b19f75178a45d8db00f5e91d606e33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Jonathan S. Katz" Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 10:43:44 -0400

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

Hi, On 9/2/18 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Dave Cramer wrote: >> Reading this from the (JDBC) drivers perspective, which is probably a fairly >> popular one, >> We now have a standard that we can't really support. Either the driver will >> have to support >> the

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

On 9/17/18 11:47 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote: > Merlin>The workaround is to simply not do that and you can get > Merlin>precise control of behavior > > You are absolutely right. > On top of that, the whole concept of DB-drivers and libpq is useless. > Users should just simply exchange wire messag

Re: PostgreSQL 11 {Beta 4, RC1} Release: 2018-09-20

On 9/13/18 12:51 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > Hi, > > We are planning to have another release of PostgreSQL 11, either Beta 4 > or RC1, next week on Thursday, 2018-09-20. The version will be > determined based on the state of the open items list[1] around the time > of stampi

Re: PostgreSQL 11 {Beta 4, RC1} Release: 2018-09-20

On 9/19/18 2:41 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:15:45PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> On 9/13/18 12:51 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> We are planning to have another release of PostgreSQL 11, either Beta 4 >>> or RC1, next week on Thursday, 2018

Re: PostgreSQL 11 {Beta 4, RC1} Release: 2018-09-20

On 9/20/18 1:13 AM, Haroon wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 at 21:15, Jonathan S. Katz <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>> wrote: > > On 9/13/18 12:51 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We are planning to have another release of PostgreSQL 11

Re: PostgreSQL 11 {Beta 4, RC1} Release: 2018-09-20

On 9/18/18 12:15 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 9/13/18 12:51 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We are planning to have another release of PostgreSQL 11, either Beta 4 >> or RC1, next week on Thursday, 2018-09-20. The version will be >> determined based on

PostgreSQL 11 RC1 + GA Dates

Hi, Based on the current status of the open items and where we are at in the release cycle, the date for the first release candidate of PostgreSQL 11 will be 2018-10-11. If all goes well with RC1, the PostgreSQL 11.0 GA release will be 2018-10-18. This is subject to change if we find any issues d

Re: sunsetting md5 password support

On 10/9/24 3:55 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote: In this message, I propose a multi-year, incremental approach to remove MD5 password support from Postgres. +100; thanks for a concrete proposal. Cutting out the "well-understood" problems bit.> Given there is a battle-tested alternative to MD5, I pro

Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?

On 10/3/24 7:29 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote: Nathan Bossart writes: I don't mind proceeding with the patch if there is strong support for it. I wavered only because it's hard to be confident that we are choosing the right limit. I'm not that fuss

2024-11-14 release announcement draft

Hi, Please review the draft of the release announcement for the 2024-11-14 release. Please provide any feedback by 2024-11-14 12:00 UTC. Thanks! Jonathan The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all supported versions of PostgreSQL, including 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14,

Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?

On 9/19/24 6:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Nathan Bossart writes: Oh, actually, I see that we are already validating the hash, but you can create valid SCRAM-SHA-256 hashes that are really long. You _can_, but it's up to a driver or a very determined user to do this, as it involves creating a very

Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?

On 9/20/24 1:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 09:46:00PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 07:37:55PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Shouldn't we enforce the limit in every case in encrypt_password, not just this one? (I do agree that encrypt_pas

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

On 5/9/24 12:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I have committed the first draft of the PG 17 release notes; you can see the results here: release-17: 188 I welcome feedback. For some reason it was an easier job than usual. Attached is a proposal for the major features section. This borro

Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes

On 9/20/24 12:55 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote: On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 10:02 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Attached is a proposal for the major features section. This borrows from the release announcement draft[1] and lists out features and themes that have broad user impact. This was a bit

IMPORTANT: Out-of-cycle release scheduled for November 21, 2024

We're scheduling an out-of-cycle release on November 21, 2024 to address two regressions that were released as part of the November 14, 2024 update release[1]. As part of this release, we will issue fixes for all supported versions (17.2, 16.6, 15.10, 14.15, 13.20), and for 12.22, even though P

Re: IMPORTANT: Out-of-cycle release scheduled for November 21, 2024

On 11/20/24 9:50 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: On 11/20/24 9:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "David G. Johnston" writes: On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:18 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: so when we decided to remove the downloads Can you elaborate on who "we" is here? More to the point,

Re: IMPORTANT: Out-of-cycle release scheduled for November 21, 2024

On 11/20/24 9:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:28:42PM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: We're scheduling an out-of-cycle release on November 21, 2024 to address two regressions that were released as part of the November 14, 2024 update release[1]. As part of this release, we wil

Re: IMPORTANT: Out-of-cycle release scheduled for November 21, 2024

On 11/20/24 10:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 09:51:09PM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: On 11/20/24 9:50 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: On 11/20/24 9:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "David G. Johnston" writes: On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:18 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: so when

Re: IMPORTANT: Out-of-cycle release scheduled for November 21, 2024

On 11/20/24 9:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "David G. Johnston" writes: On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:18 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: so when we decided to remove the downloads Can you elaborate on who "we" is here? More to the point, what downloads were removed? I still see the source tarballs in the

Re: 2024-11-14 release announcement draft

On 11/14/24 2:55 AM, jian he wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:28 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Hi, Please review the draft of the release announcement for the 2024-11-14 release. Please provide any feedback by 2024-11-14 12:00 UTC. someone reminded me. i am wondering do we need include the

Re: 2024-11-14 release announcement draft

On 11/11/24 11:54 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:28 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Please review the draft of the release announcement for the 2024-11-14 release. Please provide any feedback by 2024-11-14 12:00 UTC. I think "* Fixes random crashes in JIT compilation on aa

2025-02-13 release announcement draft

Hi, Attached is a draft of the 2025-02-13 update release announcement. Please provide feedback no later than 2025-02-13 0:00 UTC. Thanks, Jonathan The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all supported versions of PostgreSQL, including 17.3, 16.7, 15.11, 14.16, and 13

Re: Add support to TLS 1.3 cipher suites and curves lists

On 12/11/24 10:14 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: On 11 Dec 2024, at 18:47, Tom Lane wrote: Oh yay, another naming problem :-(. I think that neither "ciphers" vs. "cipher suites" nor "ssl_ciphers" vs. "ssl_ciphers_tlsv13" is going to convey a lot to the average person who's not steeped in TLS m

New committer: Jacob Champion

The Core Team would like to extend our congratulations to Jacob Champion, who has accepted an invitation to become our newest PostgreSQL committer. Please join us in wishing Jacob much success and few reverts! Thanks, Jonathan OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

2025-05-08 release announcement draft

Hi, Attached is the draft of the release announcement for the 2025-05-08 release. Please review for correctness and omissions. Please provide feedback no later than 2025-05-08 12:00 UTC. Thanks, Jonathan The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all supported versions

Re: PG 18 release notes draft committed

On 5/3/25 7:48 PM, 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 a

PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

Hi, Attached is a draft of the PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement. The goal of this announcement is to introduce the new capabilities planned for PostgreSQL 18 and give users an idea of areas we'd like to see tested. Please check for accuracy and if there are glaring omissions (happy

Out-of-cycle release on 2025-02-20

Hi, CVE-2025-1094[1] introduced a regression that was reported fairly shortly after the release[2]. Based on the nature of the report and the fact it's in libpq, the release team was unsure of what the overall prevalence of the issue given its client-facing, and decided to have an out-of-cycl

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/7/25 5:38 AM, Matthias van de Meent wrote: On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 21:07, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Hi, Attached is a draft of the PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement. The goal of this announcement is to introduce the new capabilities planned for PostgreSQL 18 and give users an idea

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/7/25 5:16 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:46 PM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Here's the next update Thanks! PostgreSQL 18 introduces `oauth` authentication, which people can create extensions that support OAuth 2.0 based authentication mechanisms that PostgreSQ

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/7/25 5:18 AM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: On Mon, 5 May 2025 at 21:07, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Attached is a draft of the PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement. It might make sense to add a small sentence like "this release introduces version 3.2 of the wire protocol, but libpq

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/7/25 4:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:24:44PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: On 5/6/25 11:17 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote: IMHO we should emphasize that MD5 password support will be removed in a future release and that users should migrate to something else soon. I'm ima

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/6/25 9:15 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote: On 2025-May-05, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: ### Other Highlights Starting with PostgreSQL 18, data checksums, which are used to validate the integrity of stored data, are now enabled by default on new PostgreSQL clusters. You can choose to disable this

Re: 2025-05-08 release announcement draft

On 5/6/25 5:23 AM, jian he wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:32 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Hi, Attached is the draft of the release announcement for the 2025-05-08 release. Please review for correctness and omissions. Please provide feedback no later than 2025-05-08 12:00 UTC. * Prevent

Re: 2025-05-08 release announcement draft

On 5/6/25 8:29 AM, Matthias van de Meent wrote: On Tue, 6 May 2025 at 05:32, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Hi, Attached is the draft of the release announcement for the 2025-05-08 release. Please review for correctness and omissions. Please provide feedback no later than 2025-05-08 12:00 UTC. I

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/6/25 11:17 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote: IMHO we should emphasize that MD5 password support will be removed in a future release and that users should migrate to something else soon. I'm imagining it'll still be at least a couple of years before I muster up the courage to actually propose remov

Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 release announcement draft

On 5/6/25 11:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2025-05-05 15:07:01 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: ### Performance PostgreSQL 18 introduces an asynchronous I/O (AIO) subsystem using `io_uring` on Linux, which, when combined with direct I/O (DIO), lets PostgreSQL directly interface with

<    2   3   4   5   6   7