Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j9xU8-0000QZ-HR for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:52:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1j9xU7-0007a1-Ck for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:52:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1j9xU7-0007Zu-0w for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:52:47 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j9xU4-0002gT-RH for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:52:45 +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 025KqhPm023504; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 15:52:43 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Daniel Gustafsson cc: Postgres hackers Subject: Re: Retiring support for pre-7.3 FK constraint triggers In-reply-to: <805874E2-999C-4CDA-856F-1AFBD9DFE933@yesql.se> References: <805874E2-999C-4CDA-856F-1AFBD9DFE933@yesql.se> Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson message dated "Thu, 05 Mar 2020 14:38:30 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23502.1583441563.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:52:43 -0500 Message-ID: <23503.1583441563@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Daniel Gustafsson writes: > Having code which is untested and not excercised by developers (or users= , if my > assumption holds), yet being reachable by SQL, runs the risk of introduc= ing > subtle bugs. Is there a usecase for keeping it, or can/should it be rem= oved in > 14? That would still leave a lot of supported versions to upgrade to in= case > there are users to need this. Pushed. Looking at the original commit, I noticed one now-obsolete comment that should also be removed, so I did that. regards, tom lane