Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?
Date
Msg-id 20230908175317.GA798890@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If we're going to actually mark it deprecated then it should be, at
> least, a yearly discussion about removing it.  I'm generally more in
> favor of either just keeping it, or just removing it, though.  We've had
> very little success marking things as deprecated as a way of getting
> everyone to stop using it- some folks will stop using it right away and
> those are the same people who would just adapt to it being gone in the
> next major version quickly, and then there's folks who won't do anything
> until it's actually gone (and maybe not even then).  There really isn't
> a serious middle-ground where deprecation is helpful given our yearly
> release cycle and long major version support period.

Fair point.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Paul A Jungwirth
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Document that server will start even if it's unable to open some TCP/IP ports