Re: A deprecation policy

"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I would also extend this system to removed configuration settings, e.g., 
>> max_fsm_*.  We should make these deprecated for one release, so (1) 
>> configuration files can be upgraded without manual work (relevant to 
>> in-place upgrade), and (2) users are alerted that their carefully 
>> crafted configuration might need a review.

> As long as they can remove the item giving the warning right away.

Well, they could only remove the item if it was *already* the case that
it didn't do anything.  In general, I think Peter neglected to address
the question of whether "deprecated" objects/functions/etc still have
their original functionality, and where along the path the replacement
functionality starts to exist.  It's certainly a bad idea to be throwing
warnings about something that people still have to use.
        regards, tom lane