Thread: Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

From
Nathan Bossart
Date:
Hi hackers,

The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50).  Should it be removed in v16?  If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



Re: Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

From
Andres Freund
Date:
Hi,

On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
> (ad44d50).  Should it be removed in v16?  If not, should we start emitting
> WARNINGs when it is used?

What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.

- Andres



Re: Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

From
Nathan Bossart
Date:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
>> (ad44d50).  Should it be removed in v16?  If not, should we start emitting
>> WARNINGs when it is used?
> 
> What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
> be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.

Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
deprecation notice in the docs.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



Re: Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

From
Andres Freund
Date:
Hi,

On 2022-07-01 15:13:16 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
> >> (ad44d50).  Should it be removed in v16?  If not, should we start emitting
> >> WARNINGs when it is used?
> > 
> > What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
> > be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.
> 
> Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
> If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
> deprecation notice in the docs.

Still serves as an explanation as to why newer options haven't been / won't be
added in an unparenthesized manner. And maybe there one day will be reason to
remove them, e.g. grammar ambiguities.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



Re: Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

From
Nathan Bossart
Date:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:19:28PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-07-01 15:13:16 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> >> The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
>> >> (ad44d50).  Should it be removed in v16?  If not, should we start emitting
>> >> WARNINGs when it is used?
>> > 
>> > What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
>> > be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.
>> 
>> Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
>> If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
>> deprecation notice in the docs.
> 
> Still serves as an explanation as to why newer options haven't been / won't be
> added in an unparenthesized manner. And maybe there one day will be reason to
> remove them, e.g. grammar ambiguities.

Fair point.  Thanks for the discussion.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



Re: Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?

From
Noah Misch
Date:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
> >> (ad44d50).  Should it be removed in v16?  If not, should we start emitting
> >> WARNINGs when it is used?
> > 
> > What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
> > be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.
> 
> Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
> If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
> deprecation notice in the docs.

Deprecation doesn't imply eventual removal.  java.io.StringBufferInputStream
has been deprecated for 25 years.  One should not expect it or the old VACUUM
syntax to go away.