Re: A deprecation policy

"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> I would also extend this system to removed configuration settings, e.g.,
>> max_fsm_*. We should make these deprecated for one release, so (1)
>> configuration files can be upgraded without manual work (relevant to
>> in-place upgrade), and (2) users are alerted that their carefully
>> crafted configuration might need a review.

> As long as they can remove the item giving the warning right away.

Well, they could only remove the item if it was *already* the case that
it didn't do anything. In general, I think Peter neglected to address
the question of whether "deprecated" objects/functions/etc still have
their original functionality, and where along the path the replacement
functionality starts to exist. It's certainly a bad idea to be throwing
warnings about something that people still have to use.

regards, tom lane