Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Sorry Tom. Greg is correct here although I disagree with his wording. It
>> should be removed and if someone passes -d it should throw an ERROR that
>> says something like:
>> ERROR: -d has been replaced by -I
>
> Well, if you want to break it, we can debate about the wisdom of that.
> But please don't describe the patch in such a misleading way as the
> current thread title.
+1 with breaking it, but with a better message (and let's call it
breaking, not deprecating).
Oh, and the patch contains what looks like two merge failures, I'm sure
that wasn't intentional...
//Magnus
