Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
>> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
>> the very beginning [1]. That is, first make "-f -" available, and
>> make it required only in some later version. If we'd back-patched
>> the optional feature back in April, it might've been okay to require
>> it in v12, but we failed to provide any transition period.
> ... just like we didn't provide any transistion period for the
> recovery.conf changes.
Sure, because there wasn't any practical way to provide a transition
period. I think that case is entirely not comparable to this one,
either as to whether a transition period is possible, or as to whether
the benefits of the change merit forced breakage.
regards, tom lane
