Re: Removal of backward-compatibility docs mentions

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> I don't think it's a net win to get rid of this text, as it describes
> useful alternatives to the GUC variable:

I was about to object to some other parts of the patch on the same
grounds, in particular the changes to ddl.sgml and maintenance.sgml,
and the first change in xfunc.sgml.  In most of these cases,
currently-useful information is intertwined with the reference to the
old behavior.  If you can't be bothered to rewrite to preserve all of
the information, then don't remove the text.

            regards, tom lane