Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5T2r-00Db4c-Ri for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:52:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5T2q-000Hbh-B1 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:52:12 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5T2q-000HZu-0p for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:52:12 +0000 Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1r5T2m-007csE-IY for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:52:11 +0000 Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-359c22c44d6so22190355ab.2 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:52:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700581926; x=1701186726; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XB5sB5j81SL8SjP33Q2ZW6P4ROrWLIUGG3h4WLNJtSU=; b=IaPNT2YHikrzIu7j27nzh9PhAk73bmLuoF0GOKTxObJk8D9zC44NckebFtI4Qa4501 AZ6vlmF9MYyDZZWmhnLzm976Bn359g6jAgQad5p/5/FWbnJZziFiCBLtDpECTcq9YJek 8DecCZ9HrywLjloEyFeA+9qcE6JmKY7qobbaWzx1hXsrcAzKUGfAVLPq/3Q+GZcD5LRt hnMJbZ9s0W7hz59NfmlC8Aeeii277qp+cr3QdKlvL8bhcLe2EFVhrC9UwfWUUhbsFNHL lRb7ekgbGNDveZ66mBnpMmdaKy0k1JZ/Og7YS0cZ5H0RCnYVZxjeLMS1nleoJFSf8DDa J+VQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700581926; x=1701186726; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=XB5sB5j81SL8SjP33Q2ZW6P4ROrWLIUGG3h4WLNJtSU=; b=bJZnRiDQYMtiHAYYIdqBcz4tbCBfqRekwi+j1F2OBBKgyc1UTTcahQ0i6vTBCoRUVj ozafGIrWyByI+l/YZy1QawnTukZry0nlQsQNQdKZwBXXn5Vidvz46hj01HtMYOn+NVD5 XPbFF9Ib/Wmy888uZgIMfq/UPgf515AslYghVYt4ep3tOutmMqwZuki5mV2Xfu4RKtrU 0UQIibW2SXjb/yMQySHjFbSn/IS95ia7Mr6djZDsSNoO7w3qeQW2xsowDTZ/hya3knir Uwlip16250v8WwapAUPjsGOq5vREfd0KT9AGRMfgDxeq/mmE2ovE2BYeLw/iWa/UJCLG 69nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzHcXi08ENIxeQyo7hiRdTTVuW4Lo3SKh3fo9+brGESIMIA3Cfi TNPopR44+BdAF5zhDj8+/tKUIeiTy2E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE4vF1SmEyOKXd9xvxYm3q1oZcG0ZLWZC4b76IUUCRPNIw9pjIXgxhTUm4z5iXdGwBdwhQ24A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f06:b0:35a:f93f:df72 with SMTP id x6-20020a056e020f0600b0035af93fdf72mr9573950ilj.3.1700581925898; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:52:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nathanxps13 (162-195-168-172.lightspeed.stlsmo.sbcglobal.net. [162.195.168.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 10-20020a056e0220ca00b0035134215863sm3307179ilq.55.2023.11.21.07.52.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:52:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 09:52:03 -0600 From: Nathan Bossart To: Tom Lane Cc: Bharath Rupireddy , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Do away with a few backwards compatibility macros Message-ID: <20231121155203.GA3566722@nathanxps13> References: <20231116154622.GA2881373@nathanxps13> <20231121045840.GD3521465@nathanxps13> <1425715.1700543136@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425715.1700543136@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 12:05:36AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. That seems reasonable to me. I don't think we need to mandate that backwards-compatibility support be removed as soon as it is eligible, but it can be considered fair game at that point. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com