On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 12:19 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On Jan15, 2011, at 02:03 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> Me, too. But I don't agree with your particular choice of small
>> >> syntax adjustment. Maybe we should just let the issue drop for now.
>> >> Nobody's actually complained about this that I can recall; it's just a
>> >> comment that's been sitting there in pg_dump for ages, and I was
>> >> inspired to think of it again because of the SQL/MED work. I'm not
>> >> sufficiently in love with this idea to walk through fire for it.
>> >
>> > Agreed. Once there's some pressing need for it, it'll be easier to make
>> > the case that some amount of incompatibility is acceptable.
>>
>> Assuming that day will come eventually, should we deprecate the LOCK <table>
>> shortcut now to ease the transition later? If people want that, I could go
>> through the docs and add some appropriate warnings.
>
> Sounds good to me.
+1.
> I think we should have a section in the release notes on Deprecated
> Features, noting that certain things will be removed later and should be
> changed now and not relied upon in the future. A pending
> incompatibilities list.
Agreed. Of course, the problem is sometimes we don't do what we say
we're going to do, but it's worth a try.
> I would urge people to come up with a much wider list of "things we
> don't like" so we can more easily avoid discussions like this in the
> future. Forward planning helps make change easier.
Optional keywords!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
