On 03/01/22 09:44, David Steele wrote:
> Personally, I am in favor of removing it. We change/rename
> functions/tables/views when we need to, and this happens in almost every
> release.
For clarification, is that a suggestion to remove the 'exclusive' parameter
in some later release, after using this release to default it to false and
reject calls with true?
I can get behind that proposal, even if we don't have a practical way
to add the warning I suggested. I'd be happier with the warning, but can
live without it. Release notes can be the warning.
That way, at least, there would be a period of time where procedures
that currently work (by passing exclusive => false) would continue to work,
and could be adapted as time permits by removing that argument, with no
behavioral change.
The later release removing the argument would then break only procedures
that had never done so. That's comparable to what's proposed for this
release, which will only break procedures that have never migrated away
from exclusive mode despite the time and notice to do so.
That seems ok to me.
Regards,
-Chap