On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The big picture here is that Postgres is a hodgepodge of features
> that were developed at different times and with different quality
> standards, over a period that's now approaching forty years.
> Some of these features interoperate better than others. Large
> objects, in particular, are largely a mess with a lot of issues
> such as not having a well-defined garbage collection mechanism.
> They do not interoperate well with foreign tables, or several
> other things, and you will not find anybody excited about putting
> effort into fixing that. We're unlikely to remove large objects
> altogether, because some people use them successfully and we're not
> about breaking cases that work today.
We could possibly have a category of such features and label them
"obsolete", where we don't threaten to remove them someday (i.e.
"deprecated"), but we are not going to improve them in any meaningful
way, and users would be warned about using them in new projects if
better alternatives are available.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
