On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Or in other words, I don't want to go from > "might disappear" in vN to gone in vN+1 with no intermediate state.
I see no problem with that. First, we remove things all the time with no deprecation warning at all when we judge that they are dead enough, or just unsalvageable. Second, if we have said that something might disappear and then it disappears, anyone who is unhappy about that is being unreasonable. In other words, I don't want to have a project policy that we will not only put a deprecation notice on everything we remove, but it will always be worded in a certain way. If you're trying to streamline the process of deprecating features, that's going in the exact wrong direction. -- 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
