On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 4:24 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 8:05 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > FYI, there are quite a lot like this. Mostly the docs are worded using > "may/might/can" rather than "will" be changed. > > Yeah, I haven't been able to dig into the source yet on this topic but basically that says to me that lots of people, with good intentions, want to couch bad news (limitations) with something positive (hope). But in the documentation it ends up almost inevitably turning into false hope. There is no good way to extract all these "TODO" items from the HTML docs and seems like a non-optimal method for transferring knowledge to potential developers who may choose to try and remove such limitations. David J.
