On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-12-16 19:01:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> Yeah, there's something to be said for that, although to be honest in >> most cases I'd prefer to wait longer. I wonder about perhaps >> planning to drop things after two lifecycles. > > I don't really give a damn in this specific case. Seems to cost pretty > much nothing to continue having the GUC. > > But I think in the more general case, which Tom seems to have brought up > as a point of policy, I think this is far to conservative. Yes, we owe > our users to not break their applications gratuitously. But we also owe > it to ourselves to keep development timeframes realistic, and not pay > overly much heed to people using seriously bad development and > maintenance practices.
Well, Tom, Alvaro, and I all pretty much said that removing things when it's blocking further development makes sense, but that there's no hurry to remove anything else. That sounds like what you are saying, too. So what's the actual disagreement here? -- 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
