* Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote:
> 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.

When we remove pg_shadow, then I'll be willing to agree that maybe we
can start having things in PG for a couple releases that are just for
backwards-compatibility and will actually be removed later.

History has shown that's next to impossible, however.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to