"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut < > peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> If we just tell them that the thing they might have relied on might go >> away, without a replacement to suggest, then we're just confusing and >> scaring them, no?
> We'd end up suggesting our OFFSET 0 hack as true protection. Considering that many of the commenters in this thread view OFFSET 0 as a vile hack that ought to go away, I can hardly see how that's an improvement. I tend to agree with Peter that there's no need to do anything until we have a committable code improvement. Documentation changes that push people towards adding OFFSET 0, without any certainty that that will be the long-term answer, do not seem like a net positive. Also, considering that this behavior has been there since 8.4, I think it's sheerest chutzpah to claim that changing the docs in v10 would materially reduce the backward-compatibility concerns for whatever we might do in v11. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers