On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> IIUC, that means supporting backwards compat. GUCs for 10 years, which seems
>> a bit excessive. Granted, that's about the worse-case
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> IIUC, that means supporting backwards compat. GUCs for 10 years,
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Robert Treat wrote:
> > Perhaps not with rock solid consistency, but we've certainly used the
> > argument of the "not a major major version release" to shoot down
> > introducing incompatible features / improvements
On 2015-12-18 12:06:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, Tom, Alvaro, and I all pretty much said that removing things
> when it's blocking further development makes sense, but that there's
> no hurry to remove anything else. That sounds like what you are
> saying, too. So what's the actual
I wrote:
> Not entirely sure what to make of this. It occurs to me that the "it
> breaks immutability" argument might apply to array_nulls, though I've
> not done any legwork to confirm or disprove that. If it doesn't apply,
> though, I'm leaning to the position that there's no reason to remove
On 12/18/2015 09:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-12-18 12:06:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, Tom, Alvaro, and I all pretty much said that removing things
when it's blocking further development makes sense, but
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I don't know what would be a good reason to change from 9 to 10, but
> certainly we shouldn't do it just to remove a couple of GUCs -- much
> less do it for no reason at all (which would be what "but 9.6 is too
>
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe I shouldn't put words in Andres' mouth, but I don't think that by
>> "indefinitely" he meant "forever". I read that more as "until some
>> positive reason to
Robert Haas writes:
> My experience is that it is very common for users to upgrade across a
> whole series of releases at the same time. People don't upgrade from
> 8.3 to 8.4 and then to 9.0, or even from 8.3 to 9.0 to 9.2. I mean,
> some do. But people doing things
On 2015-12-16 19:01:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, there's something to be said for that, although to be honest in
> most cases I'd prefer to wait longer. I wonder about perhaps
> planning to drop things after two lifecycles.
I don't really give a damn in this specific case. Seems to cost
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-12-16 19:01:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Yeah, there's something to be said for that, although to be honest in
>> most cases I'd prefer to wait longer. I wonder about perhaps
>> planning to drop things after
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> I'm saying that 10 year deprecation periods don't make sense. Either we
> >> decide to remove
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-12-18 12:06:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, Tom, Alvaro, and I all pretty much said that removing things
>> when it's blocking further development makes sense, but that there's
>> no hurry to remove
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 09:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-12-18 12:06:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, Tom, Alvaro,
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I'm saying that 10 year deprecation periods don't make sense. Either we
>> decide to remove the compat switch because we dislike it for $reasons,
>> in which case it should
On 12/18/15 11:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
"David G. Johnston" writes:
>On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>Maybe I shouldn't put words in Andres' mouth, but I don't think that by
>>"indefinitely" he meant "forever". I read that
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> IIUC, that means supporting backwards compat. GUCs for 10 years, which seems
> a bit excessive. Granted, that's about the worse-case scenario for what I
> proposed (ie, we'd still be supporting 8.0 stuff right now).
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 12/11/15 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Jim Nasby writes:
>>> Perhaps, but I'd like to have a less
On 12/16/15 6:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 12/11/15 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
Perhaps,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 12/11/15 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jim Nasby writes:
>> Perhaps, but I'd like to have a less ad-hoc process about it. What's
>> our policy for dropping backwards-compatibility GUCs? Are
On 12/11/15 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
A quick doc search indicates this config was created in 9.0, though the
docs state it's for a change that happened in 8.2[1].
Don't know what you're looking at, but the GUC is definitely there (and
documented)
Jim Nasby writes:
> A quick doc search indicates this config was created in 9.0, though the
> docs state it's for a change that happened in 8.2[1].
Don't know what you're looking at, but the GUC is definitely there (and
documented) in 8.2.
> Is it time to remove this
22 matches
Mail list logo