"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> If we just tell them that the thing they might have relied on might go
>> away, without a replacement to suggest, then we're just confusing and
>> scaring them, no?
> We'd end up suggesting our OFFSET 0 hack as true protection.
Considering that many of the commenters in this thread view OFFSET 0
as a vile hack that ought to go away, I can hardly see how that's
an improvement.
I tend to agree with Peter that there's no need to do anything until
we have a committable code improvement. Documentation changes that
push people towards adding OFFSET 0, without any certainty that that
will be the long-term answer, do not seem like a net positive.
Also, considering that this behavior has been there since 8.4,
I think it's sheerest chutzpah to claim that changing the docs in
v10 would materially reduce the backward-compatibility concerns
for whatever we might do in v11.
regards, tom lane
