On 02/09/2017 12:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.

That's why I said 6-10 years.  If we're doing 3a, realistically we're
supporting it until PostgreSQL 16, at least, and more likely 20.  I'm OK
with that.

What I'm voting against is the idea that we'll have aliases in core, but
remove them in two releases.  Either that's unrealistic, or it's just
prolonging the pain.

Josh Berkus
Containers & Databases Oh My!

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to