> On Feb 25, 2019, at 13:38, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> I think you might be right about this specific issue. But to me it
> sounds like you also don't appreciate that development resources are
> really constrained too, and providing endless backward compatibility for
> everything is going to use both resources directly, and indirectly by
> making the whole system more complex.
One of the things I've tried not to do in this discussion is turn it into a policy debate about backwards compatibility
ingeneral, rather than this very specific feature. Of course, there's a cost to keeping around features, and I fully
appreciatethat. In this discussion, the code complexity didn't seem to be the fundamental driver behind removing the
feature;the relative safety of it was, along with maintaining the documentation.
I jumped in because there seemed to be an argument going on that all of the cool kids will have moved off the old
interfaceand there was essentially no cost to removing it in v12 or v13, and that didn't correspond to my experience.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof@thebuild.com
