Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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,

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

"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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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,

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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).

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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,

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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)

Re: [HACKERS] Remove array_nulls?

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