On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 12/11/15 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: >> Perhaps, but I'd like to have a less ad-hoc process about it. What's >> our policy for dropping backwards-compatibility GUCs? Are there any >> others that should be removed now as well? > > > Perhaps it should be tied to bumping the major version number, which I'm > guessing would happen next whenever we get parallel query execution. If we > do that, a reasonable policy might be that a compatability GUC lives across > no more than 1 major version bump (ie, we wouldn't remove something in 9.0 > that was added in 8.4).
Another possibility may be to link that with the 5-year maintenance window of community: a compatibility GUC is dropped in the following major release if the oldest stable version maintained is the one that introduced it. Just an idea. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
