On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Well, we can remove them from PG10 and pgAdmin3 (and others) be > adjusted > > > to use the new ones, conditionally on server version. Surely pgAdmin3 > > > is going to receive further updates, given that it's still widely used? > > > > According to the pgAdmin web site, no. (Yeah, that does seem odd.) > > I really do not think the PG core project should be held hostage by an > external and apparently not-really-maintained project. What if we > introduce some other difference in PG10 that breaks pgAdmin3? Are we > going to roll that change back? Are we sure that none exists already? > > And, as I understand it, pgAdmin3 hasn't got support for features > introduced as far back as 9.5 either, surely it's not going to have > support added to it for the publication/subscription things or > declarative partitioning, should we rip those out to accomedate > pgAdmin3? > FWIW, I think pgadmin3 is already pretty solidly broken on 10 because of the renaming of xlog related functions to WAL. I certainly can't get it started... It fails on pg_xlog_receive_location(). Which causes all sorts of further fallout. You can get past it after clicking through like 10-15 asserts. > >> IMHO, these views aren't costing us much. It'd be nice to get rid of > > >> them eventually but a view definition doesn't really need much > > >> maintenance. > > > > > > Maybe not, but the fact that they convey misleading information is bad. > > > > Has anyone actually been confused by them? > > This isn't something we can prove. Nor can we prove that no one has > ever been confused. What we can show is that they're clearly misleading > and inconsistent. Even if no one is ever confused by them, having them > is bad. > > > > On the other hand, I suppose that the last version of pgAdmin 3 isn't > > likely to work with future major versions of PostgreSQL anyway unless > > somebody updates it, and if somebody decides to update it for the > > other changes in v10 then updating it for the removal of these views > > won't be much extra work. So maybe it doesn't matter > I don't think pgadmin3 can really be said to be an argument for it no. Since it's already unsupported with that version, and the pgadmin team has been pretty clear at saying it won't be supported. pgadmin4 will support it of course. But things like the xlog->wal changes are much more likely to break parts of pgadmin than these views are, and I would guess the same for most other admin tools as well. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
