Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awAtn-0005eV-RH for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:04:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awAtn-0005Zp-Di for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:04:11 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awAtQ-0004fc-E8 for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:03:48 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awAtN-0006JV-Ql for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:03:47 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3TG3i2U017561; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:44 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Kevin Grittner cc: "Andrei M. Eichler" , "pgsql-docs@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: COPY options In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Kevin Grittner message dated "Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:53:57 -0500" Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:44 -0400 Message-ID: <17560.1461945824@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org Kevin Grittner writes: > It's not really a question of whether we should go back to > documenting the deprecated syntax, but whether (and when) support > for it should finally be ripped out. It was last documented in 8.4. We still document, and support, not only the pre-9.0 COPY syntax but also the pre-7.3 COPY syntax; see the bottom of the COPY reference page. The timescale for getting rid of that kind of thing is *really* long, in part for fear of breaking old pg_dump backups. BTW, so far as FORCE NULL goes, I think that feature was implemented earlier in the 9.0 cycle than where we put in the new generalized option syntax. When we did the latter, we reverted the documentation of the old syntax to exactly match 8.4, but did not take out the gram.y production allowing the never-released FORCE NULL syntax. I do not recall if that was intentional or an oversight. We could (a) document it, (b) remove it, or (c) leave it alone. At this point I favor the benign neglect approach. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs