Re: A deprecation policy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: A deprecation policy
Date
Msg-id 49935B63.5010107@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to A deprecation policy  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: A deprecation policy  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter,

> 3. In release N+2, if there were no protests in response to step 2, 
> deprecated features are removed.

The main issue I can see with this is that most production sites only 
upgrade once every 2-3 years.  So they'd tend to miss warnings entirely.

> I would also extend this system to removed configuration settings, e.g., 
> max_fsm_*.  We should make these deprecated for one release, so (1) 
> configuration files can be upgraded without manual work (relevant to 
> in-place upgrade), and (2) users are alerted that their carefully 
> crafted configuration might need a review.

I think the combination of a config file generator (in development now) 
with a config file checker (something we could use anyway) would take 
care of any config file issues.

I did actually give some thought to a config file converter, but the 
number of options which are new, changed names, changed names and 
changed meanings, changed options, or went away makes it an n^2 issue 
and not really worth solving.  Just tell the people to run the new 
version of the config file generator.

The other thing we could use would be clearer documentation on this sort 
of thing.  That is, a single page in the docs which talks about what was 
depreciated in specific versions.  We kinda do this in the release 
notes, but the notices often aren't that clear and are mixed in with a 
lot of other stuff.  Probably we should just clear this up in the 
release notes.

--Josh



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Strange issue with CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug #4284