From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Do away with a few backwards compatibility macros
In-reply-to: <20231121045840.GD3521465@nathanxps13>
References: <CALj2ACVeO58JM5tK2Qa8QC-=kC8sdkJOTd4BFU=K8zs4gGYpjQ@mail.gmail.com> <20231116154622.GA2881373@nathanxps13> <20231121045840.GD3521465@nathanxps13>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:58:40 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1425714.1700543136.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:05:36 -0500
Message-ID: <1425715.1700543136@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1425715.1700543136%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:46:22AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I'm fine with this because all of these macros are no-ops for all supported
>> versions of Postgres.  Even if an extension is using them today, you'll get
>> the same behavior as before if you remove the uses and rebuild against
>> v12-v16.

> Barring objections, I'll plan on committing this in the next week or so.

No objection here, but should we try to establish some sort of project
policy around this sort of change (ie, removal of backwards-compatibility
support)?  "Once it no longer matters for any supported version" sounds
about right to me, but maybe somebody has an argument for thinking about
it differently.

			regards, tom lane