Jim Nasby wrote: > On Jun 13, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > If we were going to make changes like this, I'd suggest we save them > > up in a big bag for when we change major version number. Everybody in > > the world thinks that PostgreSQL v8 is compatible across all versions > > (8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4), and it will be same with v9. That way we > > would still have forward progress, but in more sensible sized steps. > > Otherwise we just break the code annually for all the people that > > support us. If we had a more stable environment for tools vendors, > > maybe people wouldn't need to be manually typing procpid anyway... > > Wouldn't it be better still to have both the new and old columns > available for a while? That would produce the minimum amount of > disruption to tools, etc. The only downside is some potential confusion, > but that would just serve to drive people to the documentation to see > why there were two fields, where they would find out one was deprecated.
Well, someone doing SELECT *, which is probably 90% of the users, are going to be pretty confused by duplicate columns, asking, "What is the difference"? For those people this would make things worse than they are now. I would say 90% of users are doing SELECT *, and 10% are joining to other tables or displaying specific columns. We want to help that 10% without making that 90% confused. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
