On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think we should have a section in the release notes on Deprecated
>>> Features, noting that certain things will be removed later and should be
>>> changed now and not relied upon in the future. A pending
>>> incompatibilities list.
>> Agreed. Of course, the problem is sometimes we don't do what we say
>> we're going to do, but it's worth a try.
> I think if we had a formal list of planned removals, it'd be more likely
> that they'd actually happen. Right now there's no process at all
> driving such things forward.
> I suggest also marking each item with a release in which we intend to do
> it, so we don't have to try to remember whether a reasonable amount of
> time has elapsed.
You mean like the way the 9.1devel documentation says that
contrib/xml2 will be removed in 8.4? I wonder if we'll do anything
either about deprecating the module or about changing the
documentation before 8.4 is EOL.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-15 19:29:54|
|Subject: Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums|
|Previous:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2011-01-15 19:26:19|
|Subject: Re: estimating # of distinct values|