From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove deprecated -H option from oid2name |
Date: | 2024-10-15 20:48:08 |
Message-ID: | c98d45c5-8ee6-42a0-93e7-b4542d287bcf@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.10.24 20:30, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2024, at 19:15, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Another problem is that "deprecated" may or may not imply that the feature
>> will be removed in the future. IMHO we should be clear about that when we
>> intend to remove something down the road (e.g., "this flag is deprecated
>> and will be removed in a future major release of PostgreSQL").
>
> That's a fair point, but if we don't aim to remove something we have, IMHO, a
> social contract to maintain the feature instead and at that point it's
> questionable if it is indeed deprecated. I guess I think we should separate
> between discouraged and deprecated.
The dictionary definition of "deprecate" is "to express disapproval of",
which I think is about the same as your "discouraged". If we need
another term, then we should say something like "planned/scheduled to be
removed".
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-10-15 21:08:15 | Re: Doc: typo in config.sgml |
Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2024-10-15 20:38:06 | Re: New "raw" COPY format |