Re: Removal of backward-compatibility docs mentions

Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > I don't think it's a net win to get rid of this text, as it describes
> > useful alternatives to the GUC variable:
>
> I was about to object to some other parts of the patch on the same
> grounds, in particular the changes to ddl.sgml and maintenance.sgml,
> and the first change in xfunc.sgml.  In most of these cases,
> currently-useful information is intertwined with the reference to the
> old behavior.  If you can't be bothered to rewrite to preserve all of
> the information, then don't remove the text.

I am working on Neils suggestion.  I don't agree we need to preserve all
information about very old releases.

--
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  SRA OSS, Inc.   http://www.sraoss.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +