Time to remove unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM?
Hi hackers,
The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50). Should it be removed in v16? If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Hi,
On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50). Should it be removed in v16? If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?
What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.
- Andres
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50). Should it be removed in v16? If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.
Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
deprecation notice in the docs.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Hi,
On 2022-07-01 15:13:16 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50). Should it be removed in v16? If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
deprecation notice in the docs.
Still serves as an explanation as to why newer options haven't been / won't be
added in an unparenthesized manner. And maybe there one day will be reason to
remove them, e.g. grammar ambiguities.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:19:28PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-07-01 15:13:16 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50). Should it be removed in v16? If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
deprecation notice in the docs.Still serves as an explanation as to why newer options haven't been / won't be
added in an unparenthesized manner. And maybe there one day will be reason to
remove them, e.g. grammar ambiguities.
Fair point. Thanks for the discussion.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:05:55PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-07-01 14:56:42 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
The unparenthesized syntax for VACUUM has been marked deprecated since v9.1
(ad44d50). Should it be removed in v16? If not, should we start emitting
WARNINGs when it is used?What would we gain? ISTM that the number of scripts and typing habits that'd
be broken would vastly exceed the benefit.Beyond removing a few lines from gram.y and vacuum.sgml, probably not much.
If it isn't going to be removed, IMO we should consider removing the
deprecation notice in the docs.
Deprecation doesn't imply eventual removal. java.io.StringBufferInputStream
has been deprecated for 25 years. One should not expect it or the old VACUUM
syntax to go away.