From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: SQL access to database attributes |
Date: | 2014-06-23 16:45:57 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRD2rTkwiTWY6ZxfQURssN-cUV4y+eU8sbarC0gfXmmshQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-06-23 18:39 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>:
> On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property
> >> CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used "CONNECTION LIMIT" in
> >> documentation. But "CONNECTION LIMIT" is still supported, but it is not
> >> documented. So for some readers it can look like breaking
> compatibility, but
> >> it is false. This should be documented better.
> >
> > Yeah, I think the old syntax should be documented also.
>
> Why do we want to document syntax that should eventually be deprecated?
>
It is fair to our users. It can be deprecated, ok, we can write in doc -
this feature will be deprecated in next three years. Don't use it, but this
should be documentated.
Pavel
>
> > See, e.g., what we do for COPY.
>
> Exactly. We're still carrying around baggage from 7.2!
>
> Backward compatibility: yes.
> Backward documentation: no.
> --
> Vik
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-23 16:46:11 | Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-06-23 16:40:00 | Re: releaseOk and LWLockWaitForVar |