On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: > On 08/22/2017 11:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> WARNING: what you did is ok, but you might have wanted to do something else >> >> First of all, whether or not that can properly be called a warning is >> highly debatable. Also, if you do that sort of thing to your spouse >> and/or children, they call it "nagging". I don't think users will >> like it any more than family members do. > > Realistically, we'll support the backwards-compatible syntax for 3-5 > years. Which is fine. > > I suggest that we just gradually deprecate the old syntax from the docs, > and then around Postgres 16 eliminate it. I posit that that's better > than changing the meaning of the old syntax out from under people. >
It seems to me that there is no folk who intently votes for making the quorum commit the default. There some folks suggest to keep backward compatibility in PG10 and gradually deprecate the old syntax. And only the issuing from docs can be possible in PG10. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
