Re: Our feature change policy

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Our feature change policy
Date: 2017-03-20 16:36:23
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZZtTPZorNHMdqTu1FuKBN7cKqK2YCWphQ=SeNedQc3Kw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> . #3 and #4 would need to be weighted depending on
> whether choosing them would delay progress, e.g. it did delay progress
> on standard-conforming strings, but the delay was determined to be
> reasonable.
>

w.r.t. standard-conforming strings to this day we are in indefinite
deprecation of the backward compatibility mechanics. We simply made the
choice of whether to use the backward compatibility mode explicit when we
changed the GUC default. For features with that possibility adding an "D.
Optionally, when applicable, maintain current behavior during release and
later switch the default behavior to the new mode after N years." Odds are
if we are considering instituting item D we'd be content with discussing
the specifics of the case and not rely on any kind of rule or guideline to
define N. As evidenced defaults and deprecation are orthogonal concerns.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-20 16:40:26 Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-03-20 16:32:19 Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4