On 11 October 2012 23:59, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> With the DDL trigger, we're able to do that faster. The idea is you >> can still delete it if you need compatibility, so we get the message >> across without an extra release and without an annoying GUC (etc). > > You're seeing these things as bugs. I see them as features. And we > don't need a GUC if you can't turn the warning off. > > I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2 > database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the DDL trigger, > especially if they might not encounter it until halfway through a > restore. That seems rather user-hostile to me.
I don't think you're listening, none of those things are problems and so not user hostile. I've proposed a trigger that is there by default but which is *removable*. So you can turn it off, and yet there is no GUC. > Also, how would you picture that working with pg_upgrade? If RULEs are in use, we automatically delete the trigger. > RULEs are a major feature we've had for over a decade. We've discussed > deprecating them on -hackers, but believe it or don't, most of our users > don't read -hackers. We need to warn people, loudly and repeatedly, for > at *least* a year and a half before removing RULEs. That is exactly what I proposed. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
