On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:22 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com [peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com] > wrote: On 5/5/17 08:43, David Rowley wrote: > How about we get the ball rolling on this in v10 and pull that part > out of the docs. If anything that'll buy us a bit more wiggle room to > change this in v11. > > I've attached a proposed patch.
If we just tell them that the thing they might have relied on might go away, without a replacement to suggest, then we're just confusing and scaring them, no? We'd end up suggesting our OFFSET 0 hack as true protection. If they know for a fact that their use of CTE for its barrier properties is not supported they are also more likely to document intentional usage with something like: "-- CHANGE THIS ONCE VERSION 11 IS RELEASED!!! --" which would make finding the call sites that need to add the new "MATERIALIZED" ​keyword much easier. How about adding MATERIALIZED now (in 10) as a noise word. Give people a release to switch over before pulling the rug.. Cheers Serge
