On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 08:17:53PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 28 June 2012 20:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > See VACUUM FULL for a recent counterexample --- we basically jacked it
> > up and drove a new implementation underneath, but we didn't change the
> > name, despite the fact that we were obsoleting a whole lot more folk
> > knowledge than exists around commit_delay.
> >
> > Of course, there were application-compatibility reasons not to rename
> > that command, which wouldn't apply so much to commit_delay. But still,
> > we have precedent for expecting that we can fix external documentation
> > rather than trying to code around whatever it says.
>
> I'm sure you're right to some degree. We can rely on some, maybe even
> most users to go and learn about these things, or hear about them
> somehow. But why should we do it that way, when what I've proposed is
> so much simpler, and has no plausible downside?
FYI, the release notes are the big place we should talk about this new,
better behavior.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
