On 03/19/2017 07:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
(Or in other words, we've been getting along fine with these script names
for circa twenty years, so what's the rush to change them RIGHT NOW?)

To be clear, I'm not in any particular rush to change them 'RIGHT NOW'.
I tend to agree with Magnus that we're doing a lot of other things in
PG10 and that makes it a bit of a natural point, but I don't hold that
position terribly strongly.  On the other hand, I do not relish the idea
of providing backwards-compatibility for every user-facing change we do
for 5 years and that's where I feel this approach is encouraging us to

I only think that argument is only applicable where the changes are closely related, e.g. renaming pg_clog, pg_xlog and pg_log in the same release. I do not see any strong connection between createuser and pg_xlog.

As for if we should have backwards compatibility for the old names I am leaning weakly for providing it in the case of createuser. I can see end users being pissed off that the createuser command is suddenly gone without any warning when they upgrade. On the flip side I have no idea how much work it would be to maintain those legacy names.


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

Reply via email to