On Wednesday, October 9, 2024, Daniel Gustafsson <
daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2024, at 19:15, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another problem is that "deprecated" may or may not imply that the feature
> will be removed in the future. IMHO we should be clear about that when we
> intend to remove something down the road (e.g., "this flag is deprecated
> and will be removed in a future major release of PostgreSQL").
That's a fair point, but if we don't aim to remove something we have, IMHO, a
social contract to maintain the feature instead and at that point it's
questionable if it is indeed deprecated. I guess I think we should separate
between discouraged and deprecated.
I’m for the status-quo. We don’t imply removal when we say deprecated, only that (usually) a better alternative exists. This setup meets our existing standards.
I don’t see a need or meaningful benefit trying to add a new term “discouraged” here. But if we do want to improve formality in this area a recap of existing discussions and its own thread would be needed.
David J.
