On 5/29/20 9:22 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Jonathan S. Katz (jk...@postgresql.org) wrote: >> On 5/29/20 3:33 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 02:53:17PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>>> More along these lines: We could also remove the ENCRYPTED and UNENCRYPTED >>>> keywords from CREATE and ALTER ROLE. AFAICT, these have never been emitted >>>> by pg_dump or psql, so there are no concerns from that end. Thoughts? >>> >>> +0.5. I think that you have a good point about the removal of >>> UNENCRYPTED (one keyword gone!) as we don't support it since 10. For >>> ENCRYPTED, I'd rather keep it around for compatibility reasons for a >>> longer time, just to be on the safe side. >> >> By that logic, I would +1 removing ENCRYPTED & UNENCRYPTED, given >> ENCRYPTED effectively has no meaning either after all this time too. If >> it's not emitted by any of our scripts, and it's been effectively moot >> for 4 years (by the time of PG14), and we've been saying in the docs "he >> ENCRYPTED keyword has no effect, but is accepted for backwards >> compatibility" I think we'd be safe with removing it. >> >> Perhaps a stepping stone is to emit a deprecation warning on PG14 and >> remove in PG15, but I think it's safe to remove. > > We're terrible about that, and people reasonably complain about such > things because we don't *know* we're gonna remove it in 15. > > I'll argue again for the approach I mentioned before somewhere: when we > commit the patch for 14, we go back and update the older docs to note > that it's gone as of v14. Deprecation notices and other such don't work > and we instead end up carrying legacy things on forever.
Yeah, my first preference is to just remove it. I'm ambivalent towards updating the older docs, but I do think it would be helpful. Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
