On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:03 AM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 14:17, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Came across this again today...we added, way back in v11: > > > > "This limitation will likely be removed in a future version of > <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>." > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-createstatistics.html > > This sort of thing doesn't particularly upset me. I don't believe we > should hide the fact that certain features might need more work. If it > inspires someone to work on making improvements, wouldn't it be > worthwhile keeping these? A huge amount of stuff gets done around here > because people find some inspiration to make things better. I don't > believe all those people need to experience the problems first-hand to > be able to fix them. Plenty of people arrive here just looking to get > involved and make a difference. I presume that something like this > being mentioned in the docs likely has a much better "we actually want > this feature" ratio than the TODO list does. I also imagine it's more > likely to inspire users of PostgreSQL to get involved in developing > than the TODO list is. > > -1 from me. > I can agree that the "will likely be removed" is a bad wording, and clearly it was wrong :) But something like "could be removed" would convey the important message that it is not a limitation of the concept itself, it's just something that hasn't been done yet -- and would perhaps encourage exactly the sort of thing yuo'r suggesting. Where as "will likely be removed" almost sounds like someone is already working on it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
