Re: Remove array_nulls?

From: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove array_nulls?
Date: 2015-12-18 14:52:08
Message-ID: CABV9wwMr07cM-Mmt1YVJA6_MUCygbkNcp9F784MX-x0SJyLgpg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-12-18 15:17:33 Re: parallel joins, and better parallel explain
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2015-12-18 14:25:32 Re: A question regarding LWLock in ProcSleep