Re: [PATCH] remove deprecated v8.2 containment operators
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-11-16T20:55:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:03:43AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > The changes to the contrib modules appear to be incomplete in some ways. > > > > In cube, hstore, and seg, there are no changes to the extension > > > > scripts to remove the operators. All you're doing is changing the C > > > > code to no longer recognize the strategy, but that doesn't explain what > > > > will happen if the operator is still used. In intarray, by contrast, > > > > you're editing an existing extension script, but that should be done by > > > > an upgrade script instead. > > > > > > In the contrib modules, I'm afraid what you gotta do is remove the > > > SQL operator definitions but leave the opclass code support in place. > > > That's because there's no guarantee that users will update the extension's > > > SQL version immediately, so a v14 build of the .so might still be used > > > with the old SQL definitions. It's not clear how much window we need > > > give for people to do that update, but I don't think "zero" is an > > > acceptable answer. > > > > Based on my experience from the field, the answer is "never". > > > > As in, most people have no idea they are even *supposed* to do such an > > upgrade, so they don't do it. Until we solve that problem, I think > > we're basically stuck with keeping them "forever". (and even if/when > > we do, "zero" is probably not going to cut it, no) > > Yeah, this is a serious problem and one that we should figure out a way > to fix or at least improve on- maybe by having pg_upgrade say something > about extensions that could/should be upgraded..? I think what's needed are: 1) a way to *warn* users about deprecation. CREATE EXTENSION might give an elog(WARNING), but it's probably not enough. It only happens once, and if it's in pg_restore/pg_upgrade, it be wrapped by vendor upgrade scripts. It needs to be more like first function call in every session. Or more likely, put it in documentation for 10 years. 2) a way to *enforce* it, like making CREATE EXTENSION fail when run against an excessively old server, including by pg_restore/pg_upgrade (which ought to also handle it in --check). Are there any contrib for which (1) is done and we're anywhere near doing (2) ? -- Justin
Commits
-
Doc: remove obsolete entries in table of BRIN strategy numbers.
- 0ce4cd04da55 14.0 landed
-
Remove deprecated containment operators for contrib types.
- 112d411fbeb5 14.0 landed
-
Remove unused and deprecated strategy numbers from BRIN code
- d93ccdea1d44 14.0 landed
-
Remove code handling removed deprecated containment operators
- 591d282e8d3e 14.0 landed
-
Remove deprecated containment operators for built-in types
- 2f70fdb0644c 14.0 landed
-
Remove use of deprecated containment operators in tests
- 3165426e54df 14.0 landed