On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org> wrote:
>> On 08/22/2017 11:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> WARNING: what you did is ok, but you might have wanted to do something else
>>>
>>> First of all, whether or not that can properly be called a warning is
>>> highly debatable. Also, if you do that sort of thing to your spouse
>>> and/or children, they call it "nagging". I don't think users will
>>> like it any more than family members do.
>>
>> Realistically, we'll support the backwards-compatible syntax for 3-5
>> years. Which is fine.
>>
>> I suggest that we just gradually deprecate the old syntax from the docs,
>> and then around Postgres 16 eliminate it. I posit that that's better
>> than changing the meaning of the old syntax out from under people.
>>
>
> It seems to me that there is no folk who intently votes for making the
> quorum commit the default. There some folks suggest to keep backward
> compatibility in PG10 and gradually deprecate the old syntax. And only
> the issuing from docs can be possible in PG10.
>
According to the discussion so far, it seems to me that keeping
backward compatibility and issuing a warning in docs that old syntax
could be changed or removed in a future release is the most acceptable
way in PG10. There is no objection against that so far and I already
posted a patch to add a warning in docs[1]. I'll wait for the
committer's decision.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoAe%2BoGSFi3bjZ%2BfW6Q%3DTK7avPdDCZLEr02zM_c-U0JsRA%40mail.gmail.com
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center