Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Sounds good. My only question is whether people need backward
> > > compatibility, and whether we can remove the compatiblity part of the
> > > interface and small overhead after 7.1 or later?
> >
> > I think we could drop it after a decent interval, but I don't see any
> > reason to be in a hurry. I do think that we'll get complaints if 7.0
> > doesn't have any backward compatibility for existing user functions.
>
> Right. A major release is what it is. And porting
> applications to a new major release too, it is a conversion,
> not an upgrade. Therefore a major release should drop as much
> backward compatibility code for minor releases as possible.

If this was simple stuff, we could keep compatibility with little
problem. But, with complex stuff like this, keeping backward
compatibility sometimes make things more confusing. They can code
things two ways, and that makes people get confused as to which one to
follow.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026