Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > On 1/2/17 11:39 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Perhaps we should split the difference and do what we did for XML: >>> provide a contrib module with alias functions using the old (xlog) names.
>> -1 >> Since these functions are normally used by admins and not generally used >> in SQL and functions, I'm not convinced the maintenance of the extension >> would be worth it. Admins are free to create whatever aliases they need >> to get their work done. > BTW, I think fears of the maintenance cost of a contrib module are > pretty overblown... it's not like we change these functions that often. > We have added quite a few in the last few releases, but we don't need > backwards compatibility for new stuff. I'm also -1 on this idea. If we're going to provide backwards compatibility, we should just leave the old names in the core. Providing an extension is more work for *everybody* --- for us, and for the users who will have to learn about and install the extension. I don't see any gain to justify that work, either. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers