On 03/01/22 09:44, David Steele wrote: > Personally, I am in favor of removing it. We change/rename > functions/tables/views when we need to, and this happens in almost every > release.
For clarification, is that a suggestion to remove the 'exclusive' parameter in some later release, after using this release to default it to false and reject calls with true? I can get behind that proposal, even if we don't have a practical way to add the warning I suggested. I'd be happier with the warning, but can live without it. Release notes can be the warning. That way, at least, there would be a period of time where procedures that currently work (by passing exclusive => false) would continue to work, and could be adapted as time permits by removing that argument, with no behavioral change. The later release removing the argument would then break only procedures that had never done so. That's comparable to what's proposed for this release, which will only break procedures that have never migrated away from exclusive mode despite the time and notice to do so. That seems ok to me. Regards, -Chap