Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A7A133817E
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:47:25 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 12079-05-3 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:47:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 707341337CCF
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:06:52 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2010 14:00:09 -0000
Received: from a88-115-218-165.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [10.0.0.101])
	[88.115.218.165]
	by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 14 Oct 2010 16:00:09 +0200
X-Authenticated: #495269
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+wm1hRnGSwHxESTWW5yr/3SwRKcx2S0i/Hal+iYV
	axRpuRd5S4Pn2h
Subject: Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikH6JF0FrwJBDaYpUN_TW=3t=Syj3pnzJ7CX1-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikr84KaL_EQECtvfnKkq0f=abHi4s+9Cq7LSOSo@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikT01KcHaEfJRBepM6ZGncD59Sn1g9MEE-XPpWX@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=Av3AJ9DAyyO758OKabzEks-pNQWm=ntTMLHkH@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikH6JF0FrwJBDaYpUN_TW=3t=Syj3pnzJ7CX1-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:00:06 +0300
Message-ID: <1287064806.9532.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201010/25
X-Sequence-Number: 6166

On ons, 2010-10-13 at 23:25 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Would anyone favor instead back-patching the documentation for the
> 8.3, 8.2, and 8.1 branches to include mentions of these
> previously-undocumented functions, instead? In
> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2004-08/msg00015.php>, Tom
> opined that they should be left undocumented, but I really don't agree
> with that.

The sets of intentionally documented and undocumented functions is part
of the API specification of a release, and we're not changing that after
the release, especially not when a future release ends up reverting the
change.