On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Agreed, let's just get it done. > > Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with > backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em). > Do people want to re-vote, understanding that those are the remaining > choices?
Does 3a) mean keeping the aliases more-or-less forever? If not, I vote for 3b. If we're going to need to break stuff, let's just do it. If we can keep the aliases for 6-10 years, then I see no reason not to have them (3a). They're not exactly likely to conflict with user-chosen names. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers