On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 12:19 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jan15, 2011, at 02:03 , Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Me, too. But I don't agree with your particular choice of small > >> syntax adjustment. Maybe we should just let the issue drop for now. > >> Nobody's actually complained about this that I can recall; it's just a > >> comment that's been sitting there in pg_dump for ages, and I was > >> inspired to think of it again because of the SQL/MED work. I'm not > >> sufficiently in love with this idea to walk through fire for it. > > > > Agreed. Once there's some pressing need for it, it'll be easier to make > > the case that some amount of incompatibility is acceptable. > > Assuming that day will come eventually, should we deprecate the LOCK <table> > shortcut now to ease the transition later? If people want that, I could go > through the docs and add some appropriate warnings.
Sounds good to me. I think we should have a section in the release notes on Deprecated Features, noting that certain things will be removed later and should be changed now and not relied upon in the future. A pending incompatibilities list. I would urge people to come up with a much wider list of "things we don't like" so we can more easily avoid discussions like this in the future. Forward planning helps make change easier. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
