MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAKFQuwbSr8xR5mHN008sAxK2rvVLEuZ01exuekT1nCB+YVgFrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqPfrexkVLBM-KYYMDLDjh=VW8TykqZeX7w--5hv+oN4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAApHDvqPfrexkVLBM-KYYMDLDjh=VW8TykqZeX7w--5hv+oN4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:05:03 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CABUevEyYJxOrqKMLsxccmTCu=i2XxZLXMi-23aEz6XZWaG9hfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lets prohibit predicting the future in the documentation.
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Documentation <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002aa114063b36c7ae"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyYJxOrqKMLsxccmTCu%3Di2XxZLXMi-23aEz6XZWaG9hfg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000002aa114063b36c7ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:03=E2=80=AFAM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>=
 wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 14:17, David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Came across this again today...we added, way back in v11:
> >
> > "This limitation will likely be removed in a future version of
> <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>."
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-createstatistics.html
>
> This sort of thing doesn't particularly upset me. I don't believe we
> should hide the fact that certain features might need more work. If it
> inspires someone to work on making improvements, wouldn't it be
> worthwhile keeping these? A huge amount of stuff gets done around here
> because people find some inspiration to make things better. I don't
> believe all those people need to experience the problems first-hand to
> be able to fix them. Plenty of people arrive here just looking to get
> involved and make a difference. I presume that something like this
> being mentioned in the docs likely has a much better "we actually want
> this feature" ratio than the TODO list does. I also imagine it's more
> likely to inspire users of PostgreSQL to get involved in developing
> than the TODO list is.
>
> -1 from me.
>

I can agree that the "will likely be removed" is a bad wording, and clearly
it was wrong :) But  something like "could be removed" would convey the
important message that it is not a limitation of the concept itself, it's
just something that hasn't been done yet -- and would perhaps encourage
exactly the sort of thing yuo'r suggesting. Where as "will likely be
removed" almost sounds like someone is already working on it.

--=20
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

--0000000000002aa114063b36c7ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 31,=
 2025 at 5:03=E2=80=AFAM David Rowley &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dgrowleyml@gmai=
l.com">dgrowleyml@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,=
204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 14:17, David G. Johnston<=
br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:david.g.johnston@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">david.g=
.johnston@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Came across this again today...we added, way back in v11:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &quot;This limitation will likely be removed in a future version of &l=
t;productname&gt;PostgreSQL&lt;/productname&gt;.&quot;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-createstatistics.htm=
l" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/=
sql-createstatistics.html</a><br>
<br>
This sort of thing doesn&#39;t particularly upset me. I don&#39;t believe w=
e<br>
should hide the fact that certain features might need more work. If it<br>
inspires someone to work on making improvements, wouldn&#39;t it be<br>
worthwhile keeping these? A huge amount of stuff gets done around here<br>
because people find some inspiration to make things better. I don&#39;t<br>
believe all those people need to experience the problems first-hand to<br>
be able to fix them. Plenty of people arrive here just looking to get<br>
involved and make a difference. I presume that something like this<br>
being mentioned in the docs likely has a much better &quot;we actually want=
<br>
this feature&quot; ratio than the TODO list does. I also imagine it&#39;s m=
ore<br>
likely to inspire users of PostgreSQL to get involved in developing<br>
than the TODO list is.<br>
<br>
-1 from me.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can agree that the &quot;=
will likely be removed&quot; is a bad wording, and clearly it was wrong :) =
But=C2=A0 something like &quot;could be removed&quot; would convey the impo=
rtant message that it is not a limitation of the concept itself, it&#39;s j=
ust something that hasn&#39;t been done yet -- and would perhaps encourage =
exactly the sort of thing yuo&#39;r suggesting. Where as &quot;will likely =
be removed&quot; almost sounds like someone is already working on it.</div>=
<div><br></div></div><span class=3D"gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><=
div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0Magnu=
s Hagander<br>=C2=A0Me: <a href=3D"http://www.hagander.net/" target=3D"_bla=
nk">https://www.hagander.net/</a><br>=C2=A0Work: <a href=3D"http://www.redp=
ill-linpro.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://www.redpill-linpro.com/</a></div=
></div></div></div>

--0000000000002aa114063b36c7ae--