From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Documentation <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Lets prohibit predicting the future in the documentation. |
Date: | 2025-07-31 23:23:41 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PtxFF_it0QAqhYgu1ThDvbcMfeyXTpOAYsi5VEvO5jJfQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 8:05 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:03 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 14:17, David G. Johnston
>> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Came across this again today...we added, way back in v11:
>> >
>> > "This limitation will likely be removed in a future version of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>."
>> >
>> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-createstatistics.html
>>
>> This sort of thing doesn't particularly upset me. I don't believe we
>> should hide the fact that certain features might need more work. If it
>> inspires someone to work on making improvements, wouldn't it be
>> worthwhile keeping these? A huge amount of stuff gets done around here
>> because people find some inspiration to make things better. I don't
>> believe all those people need to experience the problems first-hand to
>> be able to fix them. Plenty of people arrive here just looking to get
>> involved and make a difference. I presume that something like this
>> being mentioned in the docs likely has a much better "we actually want
>> this feature" ratio than the TODO list does. I also imagine it's more
>> likely to inspire users of PostgreSQL to get involved in developing
>> than the TODO list is.
>>
>> -1 from me.
>
>
> I can agree that the "will likely be removed" is a bad wording, and clearly it was wrong :) But something like "could be removed" would convey the important message that it is not a limitation of the concept itself, it's just something that hasn't been done yet -- and would perhaps encourage exactly the sort of thing yuo'r suggesting. Where as "will likely be removed" almost sounds like someone is already working on it.
>
FYI, there are quite a lot like this. Mostly the docs are worded using
"may/might/can" rather than "will" be changed.
Some examples (e.g. search .sgml for "future")
... but this may change in future releases.
... These will probably be fixed in future releases:
... An area for future development is to ...
... restriction that may be lifted in a future version ...
... this might be replaced by a different mechanism in the future.
... This may be changed in a future release ...
... might change in a future release.
... This information describes possible future behavior.
... some of these restrictions might be loosened in a future release.
... (this behavior might change in the future).
... These can and probably will be fixed in future releases:
... These deficiencies may be remedied in future versions ...
... It is hoped that a future version of this module will ...
... This restriction on ... may be lifted in a future version
... These might be addressed in future releases.
... This may be expanded in the future.
... might be changed in a future release.
... This is an implementation restriction that might be fixed in
future releases.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-07-31 23:39:08 | Re: Lets prohibit predicting the future in the documentation. |
Previous Message | Shuyu Pan | 2025-07-31 18:41:20 | Re: further clarification: alter table alter column set not null - table scan is skipped |