* 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. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature