On 2015-12-16 19:01:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Yeah, there's something to be said for that, although to be honest in > most cases I'd prefer to wait longer. I wonder about perhaps > planning to drop things after two lifecycles.
I don't really give a damn in this specific case. Seems to cost pretty much nothing to continue having the GUC. But I think in the more general case, which Tom seems to have brought up as a point of policy, I think this is far to conservative. Yes, we owe our users to not break their applications gratuitously. But we also owe it to ourselves to keep development timeframes realistic, and not pay overly much heed to people using seriously bad development and maintenance practices. It doesn't even benefit users really much delaying things that long. Usually the migration costs, of fixing code previously kept working by a GUC, increase over time, not decrease. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers