IMHO, it leads to more maintenance work to support backward compatibility. Can we give it a desupport version such as saying, "it's currently deprecated and will be completely removed in 8.2, 8.3, ...?" That way, supporting the both for the short-term wouldn't be too wasteful.
( sorry Tom, GMAIL defaults to REPLY not REPLY ALL :( ) 2005/10/7, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > >> Also they > >> don't need to modify > >> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to > >> return int > >> based on the boolean version? > > > No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose > > they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's a hack. > > Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion of having > both > > int pg_cancel_backend(int) > bool pg_backend_cancel(int) > > with the former deprecated but still there for backward compatibility? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- Respectfully, Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect EnterpriseDB Corporation http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
