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.
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.
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.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services