Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 24.04.2013 06:22, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 06:56:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:04:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>>> Do we usually repeat the changes listed in the backwards
>>>>> compatibility section later, in the "Changes" section? If not, then
>>>>> instead of the first two items above, let's just have these in the
>>>>> backwards-compatibility section:
>>>>
>>>> We do not repeat the incompatibile items later in release notes.  I have
>>>> added some of your text to one of the items, and added a mention that
>>>> tooling will need adjustment.  Please check the post-commit version and
>>>> let me know about adjustments.
>>>
>>> Let me clarify --- changes to our WAL binary format and source code
>>> changes are not really incompatibilities from a user perspective as we
>>> never promise to do our best to minimize such changes  --- m eaning the
>>> fact the WAL format changed is something that would be only in the
>>> source code section and not in the "incompatibilities section"  ---
>>> incompatibilities are related to change in user experience or
>>> documented-API changes.
>>
>> These guidelines makes sense, except I think the change in naming
>> standard of xlog segments is important to document clearly because, even
>> if we have not promised compatibility, people could be relying on it in
>> scripts.  I think it makes sense to waste a couple of lines documenting
>> this change, even if we expect the number of people to be bitten by it
>> to be very low.

Right. Kevin mentioned he had a script that knew about the numbering: 
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FD09B5E020000250004818B@gw.wicourts.gov.

> Agreed.  Here is the new text:
>
>          Store WAL in a continuous stream, rather than skipping the last
>          16MB segment every 4GB (Heikki Linnakangas)  BACKWARD COMPATIBLE BREAK
>
>          Previously, WAL files ending in FF were not used.  If you have
>          WAL backup or restore scripts that took that skipping into account,
>          they need to be adjusted.

Looks good, thanks!

- Heikki