"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <da...@druid.net> writes: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> I would also extend this system to removed configuration settings, e.g., >> max_fsm_*. We should make these deprecated for one release, so (1) >> configuration files can be upgraded without manual work (relevant to >> in-place upgrade), and (2) users are alerted that their carefully >> crafted configuration might need a review.
> As long as they can remove the item giving the warning right away. Well, they could only remove the item if it was *already* the case that it didn't do anything. In general, I think Peter neglected to address the question of whether "deprecated" objects/functions/etc still have their original functionality, and where along the path the replacement functionality starts to exist. It's certainly a bad idea to be throwing warnings about something that people still have to use. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers