On 5/6/24 5:08 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 05:44, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> Please provide feedback no later (and preferably sooner) than 2024-05-09
>> 12:00 UTC.
>
> Thanks for the draft. Here's some feedback.
>
>> * Fix [`INSERT`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-insert.html) from
>> multiple [`VALUES`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-values.html)
>> rows into a target column that is a domain over an array or composite type.
>> including requiring the [SELECT privilege](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-grant.html)
>> on the target table when using [`MERGE`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-merge.html)
>> when using `MERGE ... DO NOTHING`.
>
> Something looks wrong with the above. Are two separate items merged
> into one? 52898c63e and a3f5d2056?
Ugh, I see what happened. I was originally planning to combine them, and
then had one be the lede, then the other. Given I ended up consolidating
quite a bit, I'll just have them each stand on their own. I'll fix this
in the next draft (which I'll upload on my Tuesday).
>> * Fix confusion for SQL-language procedures that returns a single composite-type
>> column.
>
> Should "returns" be singular here?
Fixed.
>> * Throw an error if an index is accessed while it is being reindexed.
>
> I know you want to keep these short and I understand the above is the
> same wording from release notes, but these words sound like a terrible
> oversite that we allow any concurrent query to still use the table
> while a reindex is in progress.
Yeah, I was not happy with this one at all.
Maybe we should give more detail
> there so people don't think we made such a silly mistake. The release
> note version I think does have enough words to allow the reader to
> understand that the mistake is more complex. Maybe we could add
> something here to make it sound like less of an embarrassing mistake?
Based on this, I'd vote to just remove it from the release announcement.
Jonathan