On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
+1. > 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. Agreed. Of course, the problem is sometimes we don't do what we say we're going to do, but it's worth a try. > 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. Optional keywords! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
