Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?
Date: 2023-09-08 17:53:17
Message-ID: 20230908175317.GA798890@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If we're going to actually mark it deprecated then it should be, at
> least, a yearly discussion about removing it. I'm generally more in
> favor of either just keeping it, or just removing it, though. We've had
> very little success marking things as deprecated as a way of getting
> everyone to stop using it- some folks will stop using it right away and
> those are the same people who would just adapt to it being gone in the
> next major version quickly, and then there's folks who won't do anything
> until it's actually gone (and maybe not even then). There really isn't
> a serious middle-ground where deprecation is helpful given our yearly
> release cycle and long major version support period.

Fair point.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-09-08 17:54:32 Re: Document that server will start even if it's unable to open some TCP/IP ports
Previous Message Paul A Jungwirth 2023-09-08 17:26:59 Re: SQL:2011 application time