On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
If they're maintained, then they'll be updated. I don't have any
sympathy if they aren't maintained.
Updating may be non-trivial effort even if they are maintained. E.g. some project may need to support both 9.6 and 10.0, and a lot of them written in a way that makes conditionals on function names non-trivial (e.g. there's just flat .sql file that is expected to work everywhere).
*document* them, and treat them as full functions just like the regular ones.
In my next WIP version of the patch (https://github.com/vrusinov/postgres/tree/rename-xlog) I keep references to old names in the description for the new names. This makes it searchable/greppable and does not encourage their usage. Exact format may change, but I'd certainly not like to treat them exactly like full functions and I'd like them to be mentioned so it's possible to search.
Overall, I don't feel super-strong either way. Adding aliases does not seem like a lot of effort or burden and I also see arguments for dropping them sooner than later. As a compromise I propose keep aliases with hard deadline for removal in 11.0.
This way we are nicer to people who maintain their tools and read release notes via giving them more time, and nicer to ourselves via cleaning legacy stuff relatively soon.
-- Vladimir Rusinov Storage SRE, Google Ireland
Google Ireland Ltd.,Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, Ireland Registered in Dublin, Ireland Registration Number: 368047
