On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I just want to point out that if we change #1, we're breaking >>> postgresql.conf compatibility for, IMHO, not a whole lot of benefit. >>> I'd just leave it alone. > >> We can add the old name as a synonym in guc.c to maintain compatibility. > > I doubt this is much of an issue at this point; max_worker_processes has > only been there a release or so, and surely there are very few people > explicitly setting it, given its limited use-case up to now. It will be > really hard to change it after 9.6, but I think we could still get away > with that today.
max_worker_processes was added in 9.4, so it's been there for two releases, but it probably is true that few people have set it. Nevertheless, I don't think there's much evidence that it is a bad enough name that we really must change it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
