Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
> On 1/2/17 11:39 AM, David Steele wrote:
>> On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should split the difference and do what we did for XML:
>>> provide a contrib module with alias functions using the old (xlog) names.
>> -1
>> Since these functions are normally used by admins and not generally used
>> in SQL and functions, I'm not convinced the maintenance of the extension
>> would be worth it. Admins are free to create whatever aliases they need
>> to get their work done.
> BTW, I think fears of the maintenance cost of a contrib module are
> pretty overblown... it's not like we change these functions that often.
> We have added quite a few in the last few releases, but we don't need
> backwards compatibility for new stuff.
I'm also -1 on this idea. If we're going to provide backwards
compatibility, we should just leave the old names in the core.
Providing an extension is more work for *everybody* --- for us, and
for the users who will have to learn about and install the extension.
I don't see any gain to justify that work, either.
regards, tom lane