On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: >> On 08/22/2017 11:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> WARNING: what you did is ok, but you might have wanted to do something else >>> >>> First of all, whether or not that can properly be called a warning is >>> highly debatable. Also, if you do that sort of thing to your spouse >>> and/or children, they call it "nagging". I don't think users will >>> like it any more than family members do. >> >> Realistically, we'll support the backwards-compatible syntax for 3-5 >> years. Which is fine. >> >> I suggest that we just gradually deprecate the old syntax from the docs, >> and then around Postgres 16 eliminate it. I posit that that's better >> than changing the meaning of the old syntax out from under people. >> > > It seems to me that there is no folk who intently votes for making the > quorum commit the default. There some folks suggest to keep backward > compatibility in PG10 and gradually deprecate the old syntax. And only > the issuing from docs can be possible in PG10. >
According to the discussion so far, it seems to me that keeping backward compatibility and issuing a warning in docs that old syntax could be changed or removed in a future release is the most acceptable way in PG10. There is no objection against that so far and I already posted a patch to add a warning in docs[1]. I'll wait for the committer's decision. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoAe%2BoGSFi3bjZ%2BfW6Q%3DTK7avPdDCZLEr02zM_c-U0JsRA%40mail.gmail.com Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
