| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov(at)google(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Cynthia Shang <cynthia(dot)shang(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Date: | 2016-12-30 11:45:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSEe_T=YpO_0NyvdV2DsQQZu=JmUsY7+RMo9d1iSGutqQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov(at)google(dot)com> wrote:
> Now, I'm not sure whether it is worth maintaining function aliases. Assuming
> these are indeed trivial (can somebody point me to example?) I see roughly
> the same amount of downsides both ways.
> Having aliases raises additional questions:
> - do we keep them documented (probably not?)
> - do we keep them forever or kill in some future version?
The idea here is to keep documented only the new function names, but
mention in the release notes that aliases are kept, and that those
will be dropped in a couple of years (see for example 5d58c07a for
initdb). This will give plenty of time to monitoring script
maintainers to adapt to the new world order.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Benedikt Grundmann | 2016-12-30 11:58:19 | Re: pg_dump versus rules, once again |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-30 11:42:41 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |