On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Presumably the point of deprecating the feature is that we'd
>>> eventually remove it. If 4 major releases isn't long enough, what is?
>> Good point.
> Unless there are further objections, I think we should go ahead and remove this.
> If there ARE further objections, then please say what release you
> think it would be OK to remove it in, or why you think it's worth
> keeping around indefinitely given that the last version in which it
> was documented is now EOL.
Hearing no further objections, I have removed this code.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-18 14:10:03|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-03-18 13:40:22|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.|