On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 08:17:53PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 28 June 2012 20:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > See VACUUM FULL for a recent counterexample --- we basically jacked it > > up and drove a new implementation underneath, but we didn't change the > > name, despite the fact that we were obsoleting a whole lot more folk > > knowledge than exists around commit_delay. > > > > Of course, there were application-compatibility reasons not to rename > > that command, which wouldn't apply so much to commit_delay. But still, > > we have precedent for expecting that we can fix external documentation > > rather than trying to code around whatever it says. > > I'm sure you're right to some degree. We can rely on some, maybe even > most users to go and learn about these things, or hear about them > somehow. But why should we do it that way, when what I've proposed is > so much simpler, and has no plausible downside?
FYI, the release notes are the big place we should talk about this new, better behavior. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
