On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I suggest also marking each item with a release in which we intend to do >>> it, so we don't have to try to remember whether a reasonable amount of >>> time has elapsed. > >> You mean like the way the 9.1devel documentation says that >> contrib/xml2 will be removed in 8.4? I wonder if we'll do anything >> either about deprecating the module or about changing the >> documentation before 8.4 is EOL. > > Well, that one is a special case, because we knew perfectly well that we > hadn't replaced all the functionality of xml2 (and we still haven't). > I think the "official" deprecation list should only contain items for > which there's no blocking issue other than wanting to give users time to > migrate to an existing alternate solution.
Fair enough. Do we wish to officially document LOCK without TABLE as a good idea to start avoiding, in case we decide to do something about that in the future? -- 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
