On Jan 15, 2011 12:30 PM, "Simon Riggs" <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 12:19 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote: > > On Jan15, 2011, at 02:03 , Tom Lane wrote: > > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> Me, too. But I don't agree with your particular choice of small > > >> syntax adjustment. Maybe we should just let the issue drop for now. > > >> Nobody's actually complained about this that I can recall; it's just a > > >> comment that's been sitting there in pg_dump for ages, and I was > > >> inspired to think of it again because of the SQL/MED work. I'm not > > >> sufficiently in love with this idea to walk through fire for it. > > > > > > Agreed. Once there's some pressing need for it, it'll be easier to make > > > the case that some amount of incompatibility is acceptable. > > > > Assuming that day will come eventually, should we deprecate the LOCK <table> > > shortcut now to ease the transition later? If people want that, I could go > > through the docs and add some appropriate warnings. > > Sounds good to me. > > > I think we should have a section in the release notes on Deprecated > Features, noting that certain things will be removed later and should be > changed now and not relied upon in the future. A pending > incompatibilities list.
+1. This would be very useful. Its hard enough for us "on the inside" to keep track of things that we deprecated... > I would urge people to come up with a much wider list of "things we > don't like" so we can more easily avoid discussions like this in the > future. Forward planning helps make change easier. There is a section on the TODO for that already, i think. Seems reasonable since this is more for developers than users. /Magnus
