Just my two cents... but I prefer option 1.
2005/10/6, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:57:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> >
> > >I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user, that I get
> > >generally annoyed with the presence of interfaces with names that
> > >were chosen for historical reasons, but are maintained only for
> > >compatibility, and either never did, or no longer apply.
> > >
> > >I'd rather you left it fixed. Returning it to the old name, for the
> > >sake of process, and no other good reason, doesn't appeal to me.
>
> It's not just for the sake of process. It's because the pgAdmin guys,
> who were the ones which invented the API and the users of it, are
> already using it with this interface. Changing it means they take the
> compatibility hit. However, I question how hard the compatibility hit
> is -- for the return type, isn't it a matter of testing two possible
> values instead of one? The naming case is harder, but how much?
>
> My vote is to not change them again.
>
> > >It is
> > >a lesson learned. We move on. Enforce the process next time. Self
> > >inflicted punishment is somewhat masochistic. :-)
> >
> > If we don't enforce the process this time, why would we enforce it next
> > time?
>
> Because we will know better.
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera Architect, http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
> "La fuerza no está en los medios físicos
> sino que reside en una voluntad indomable" (Gandhi)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
--
Respectfully,
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
http://www.enterprisedb.com/
