* Consider compressing indexes by storing key values duplicated in
  several rows as a single index entry
>
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00341.php
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg01264.php
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00465.php
>

* Add SQL:2003 WITH RECURSIVE (hierarchical) queries to SELECT

>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg01375.php

Back patch to 8.3.X.

>
> * Allow client certificate names to be checked against the client
>   hostname
>
>   This is already implemented in
>   libpq/fe-secure.c::verify_peer_name_matches_certificate() but the code
>   is commented out.

>
> * Reduce memory usage of aggregates in set returning functions
>
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-01/msg00031.php
>

>
> 	o Prevent escape string warnings when object names have
> 	  backslashes
>
> 	  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00227.php
>

> * Prevent malicious functions from being executed with the permissions
>   of unsuspecting users
>
>   Index functions are safe, so VACUUM and ANALYZE are safe too.
>   Triggers, CHECK and DEFAULT expressions, and rules are still vulnerable.
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00268.php

just reference them from the localization doc section.

Backpatch to 8.3.X.

< 	o Have CONSTRAINT cname NOT NULL preserve the contraint name
> 	o Have CONSTRAINT cname NOT NULL record the contraint name

>
> 	o Have CONSTRAINT cname NOT NULL preserve the contraint name
>
> 	  Right now pg_attribute.attnotnull records the NOT NULL status
> 	  of the column, but does not record the contraint name
>

TODO categories.

caches that we don't actually need to touch.  This saves some trivial
number of cycles and avoids certain cases of deadlock when doing concurrent
VACUUM FULL on system catalogs.  Per report from Gavin Roy.

Backpatch to 8.2.  In earlier versions, CatalogCacheInitializeCache didn't
lock the relation so there's no deadlock risk (though that certainly had
plenty of risks of its own).

checkpoint timeout can incrase the time needed for crash recovery, per
suggestion from Simon.

* Add support for SQL-standard GENERATED/IDENTITY columns

>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00604.php

* Add SQL:2003 WITH RECURSIVE (hierarchical) queries to SELECT

>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00642.php
>

>
> 	o Allow COPY FROM to create index entries in bulk
>
> 	  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00811.php
>

maximum number of bytes allowed.

temporary table; we can't support that because there's no way to clean up the
source backend's internal state if the eventual COMMIT PREPARED is done by
another backend.  This was checked correctly in 8.1 but I broke it in 8.2 :-(.
Patch by Heikki Linnakangas, original trouble report by John Smith.

Dave Page

< 	  produce a single dump output file.
> 	  produce a single dump output file.  It also would require
> 	  several sessions to share the same snapshot.

<
< 	o To better utilize resources, restore data, primary keys, and
<  	  indexes for a single table before restoring the next table
<
< 	  Hopefully this will allow the CPU-I/O load to be more uniform
< 	  for simultaneous restores.  The idea is to start data restores
< 	  for several objects, and once the first object is done, to move
< 	  on to its primary keys and indexes.  Over time, simultaneous
< 	  data loads and index builds will be running.

        o Allow pg_restore to utilize multiple CPUs and I/O channels by
          restoring multiple objects simultaneously

> 	  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00963.php

< * pg_dump
> * pg_dump / pg_restore
> 	o Allow pg_dump to utilize multiple CPUs and I/O channels by dumping
> 	  multiple objects simultaneously
>
> 	  The difficulty with this is getting multiple dump processes to
> 	  produce a single dump output file.
> 	  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00205.php
>
> 	o Allow pg_restore to utilize multiple CPUs and I/O channels by
>           restoring multiple objects simultaneously
>
> 	  This might require a pg_restore flag to indicate how many
> 	  simultaneous operations should be performed.  Only pg_dump's
> 	  -Fc format has the necessary dependency information.
>
> 	o To better utilize resources, restore data, primary keys, and
>  	  indexes for a single table before restoring the next table
>
> 	  Hopefully this will allow the CPU-I/O load to be more uniform
> 	  for simultaneous restores.  The idea is to start data restores
> 	  for several objects, and once the first object is done, to move
> 	  on to its primary keys and indexes.  Over time, simultaneous
> 	  data loads and index builds will be running.
>
> 	o To better utilize resources, allow pg_restore to check foreign
> 	  keys simultaneously, where possible
> 	o Allow pg_restore to create all indexes of a table
> 	  concurrently, via a single heap scan
>
> 	  This requires a pg_dump -Fc file because that format contains
>           the required dependency information.
> 	  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-05/msg01274.php
>
> 	o Allow pg_restore to load different parts of the COPY data
> 	  simultaneously
<   single heap scan, and have a restore of a pg_dump somehow use it
>   single heap scan, and have pg_restore use it
<   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-05/msg01274.php

Jun Kuwamura

> * Allow INSERT ... DELETE ... RETURNING, namely allow the DELETE ...
>   RETURNING to supply values to the INSERT
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/thrd2.php#00979

        o Consider using a ring buffer for COPY FROM
<
< http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01080.php
> 	  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01080.php

>
> * Allow the UUID type to accept non-standard formats
>
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01214.php

> * Speed WAL recovery by allowing more than one page to be prefetched
>
>   This involves having a separate process that can be told which pages
>   the recovery process will need in the near future.
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01279.php
>

    <H3 id="item1.15">1.15) How do I unsubscribe from the
    PostgreSQL email lists?  How do I avoid receiving duplicate
    emails?</H3>