* Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > 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.
Any that we're aware of, I'd suggest we reach out to the maintainers of and let them know. > 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. Agreed. > -1 on a warning. Very little code today which references the deprecated > code is interactive, so who's going to see the warning? Indeed, I was thinking of this also. The warnings would just end up in the server logs, amongst tons of often not-terribly-interesting information that far too many users ignore already, and those that don't probably actually read the release notes. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature