Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
> >> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
> >> the very beginning [1]. That is, first make "-f -" available, and
> >> make it required only in some later version. If we'd back-patched
> >> the optional feature back in April, it might've been okay to require
> >> it in v12, but we failed to provide any transition period.
>
> > ... just like we didn't provide any transistion period for the
> > recovery.conf changes.
>
> Sure, because there wasn't any practical way to provide a transition
> period. I think that case is entirely not comparable to this one,
> either as to whether a transition period is possible, or as to whether
> the benefits of the change merit forced breakage.
We didn't put any effort into trying to provide a transition period, and
for good reason- everyone gets 5 years of transition time. I'd be just
as happy to not even commit the change to make -f- go to stdout in the
back-branches, if I didn't feel that the behavior of it going to a file
called ./- was really just an outright bug in the first place.
Thanks,
Stephen
