On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> My feeling is that if it's as flakey and unreliable as it currently >> is, we shouldn't ship it. Removing it from CVS doesn't mean "you >> can't use this any more"; this is open source. It just means people >> will have to go and get an old copy out of CVS and presumably in so >> doing they will be aware that we've removed it for a reason. We have >> a well-deserved reputation for quality and I would like to see us >> preserve that. > > [ shrug... ] It is not any more flaky than it's been since it was put in. > The people who have been depending on it presumably have use-patterns > for which it doesn't fail, and we're not going to be doing them a > service by ripping out functionality for which we can't offer a > replacement.
Well, then we'd at least better update the documentation to (1) remove the statement that this will be removed in 8.4 (since we didn't), and (2) add a very, very large warning that this will crash if you do almost anything with it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers