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


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment: warning_s_s_names.patch
Description: Binary data

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

Reply via email to