> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailtogsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
> Alvaro Herrera
> Sent: 07 October 2005 03:32
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc; Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
>
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:57:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> >
> > >I don't get a vote - but I do want to suggest, as a user,
> that I get
> > >generally annoyed with the presence of interfaces with names that
> > >were chosen for historical reasons, but are maintained only for
> > >compatibility, and either never did, or no longer apply.
> > >
> > >I'd rather you left it fixed. Returning it to the old name, for the
> > >sake of process, and no other good reason, doesn't appeal to me.
>
> It's not just for the sake of process. It's because the pgAdmin guys,
> who were the ones which invented the API and the users of it, are
> already using it with this interface. Changing it means they take the
> compatibility hit. However, I question how hard the compatibility hit
> is -- for the return type, isn't it a matter of testing two possible
> values instead of one? The naming case is harder, but how much?

Thanks Alvaro :-). More by luck than judgement we actually weren't
affected by any of the changes in the end. I do think that
pg_cancel_backend should be reverted given that it is a change from 8.0
as opposed to being completely new, and I definitely think we need to
ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again in beta without very
good reason.

Regards, Dave.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly