On 2015-12-16 19:01:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, there's something to be said for that, although to be honest in
> most cases I'd prefer to wait longer. I wonder about perhaps
> planning to drop things after two lifecycles.
I don't really give a damn in this specific case. Seems to cost pretty
much nothing to continue having the GUC.
But I think in the more general case, which Tom seems to have brought up
as a point of policy, I think this is far to conservative. Yes, we owe
our users to not break their applications gratuitously. But we also owe
it to ourselves to keep development timeframes realistic, and not pay
overly much heed to people using seriously bad development and
maintenance practices.
It doesn't even benefit users really much delaying things that
long. Usually the migration costs, of fixing code previously kept
working by a GUC, increase over time, not decrease.
