On 02/09/2017 05:19 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>>> As someone mentioned, forcing a user to install an extension makes
>>> the deprecation visible. Another option would be to have the backend
>>> spit out a WARNING the first time you access anything that's
>>> deprecated. Both of those are pertinent reminders to people that
>>> they need to change their tools.
>> Ugh.  Please, no.  Hacking up the backend to recognize that a given
>> query is referring to a deprecated view and then throwing a warning on
>> it is just plain ugly.
>> Let's go one step further, and throw an ERROR if someone tries to query
>> these views instead.
> FWIW, I am of the opinion to just nuke them as the "soft of"
> deprecation period has been very long. Applications should have
> switched to pg_authid and pg_roles long ago already.

We will definitely break a lot of client code by removing these -- I
know that, deprecated or not, a lot of infrequently-updated
driver/orm/GUI code still refers to pg_shadow/pg_user.

I think Postgres 10 is the right time to break that code (I mean, we
have to do it someday, and we're already telling people about breakage
in 10), but be aware that there will be shouting and carrying on.

-1 on a warning.  Very little code today which references the deprecated
code is interactive, so who's going to see the warning?

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