On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/15 2:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
>> Perhaps, but I'd like to have a less ad-hoc process about it. What's
>> our policy for dropping backwards-compatibility GUCs? Are there any
>> others that should be removed now as well?
>
>
> Perhaps it should be tied to bumping the major version number, which I'm
> guessing would happen next whenever we get parallel query execution. If we
> do that, a reasonable policy might be that a compatability GUC lives across
> no more than 1 major version bump (ie, we wouldn't remove something in 9.0
> that was added in 8.4).
Another possibility may be to link that with the 5-year maintenance
window of community: a compatibility GUC is dropped in the following
major release if the oldest stable version maintained is the one that
introduced it. Just an idea.
--
Michael