On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> IIUC, that means supporting backwards compat. GUCs for 10 years, which seems
>> a bit excessive. Granted, that's about the worse-case scenario for what I
>> proposed (ie, we'd still be supporting 8.0 stuff right now).
>
> Not to me. GUCs like array_nulls don't really cost much - there is no
> reason to be in a hurry about removing them that I can see.
>
Perhaps not with rock solid consistency, but we've certainly used the
argument of the "not a major major version release" to shoot down
introducing incompatible features / improvements (protocol changes
come to mind), which further lends credence to Jim's point about
people expecting backwards incompatible breakage to be in a major
major version changes.
Given the overhead from a development standpoint is low, whats the
better user experience: delay removal for as long as possible (~10
years) to narrow the likely of people being affected, or make such
changes as visible as possible (~6+ years) so that people have clear
expectations / lines of demarcation?
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com