On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: >> IIUC, that means supporting backwards compat. GUCs for 10 years, which seems >> a bit excessive. Granted, that's about the worse-case scenario for what I >> proposed (ie, we'd still be supporting 8.0 stuff right now). > > Not to me. GUCs like array_nulls don't really cost much - there is no > reason to be in a hurry about removing them that I can see. >
Perhaps not with rock solid consistency, but we've certainly used the argument of the "not a major major version release" to shoot down introducing incompatible features / improvements (protocol changes come to mind), which further lends credence to Jim's point about people expecting backwards incompatible breakage to be in a major major version changes. Given the overhead from a development standpoint is low, whats the better user experience: delay removal for as long as possible (~10 years) to narrow the likely of people being affected, or make such changes as visible as possible (~6+ years) so that people have clear expectations / lines of demarcation? Robert Treat play: xzilla.net work: omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
