On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse >> users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like >> to remove that style in PostgreSQL 10 and to raise an syntax error to >> user for more safety. Also, since the syntax 'a, b' might be opaque >> for new users who don't know the history of s_s_names syntax, we could >> unify its syntax to '[ANY|FIRST] N (a, b, ...)' syntax while keeping >> the '*'. > > I find the removal of a syntax in release N for something introduced > in release (N - 1) a bit hard to swallow from the user prospective. > What about just issuing a warning instead and say that the use of > ANY/FIRST is recommended? It costs nothing in maintenance to keep it > around.
Yeah, I think that would be better. If we decide to not make quorum commit the default we can issue a warning in docs. Attached a draft patch. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
warning_s_s_names.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
