2014-06-29 21:09 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com> writes:
> > On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT
> >> instead CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough
> >> for breaking compatibility?
> > How is compatibility broken?  The grammar still accepts the old way, I
> > just changed the documentation to promote the new way.
> While I agree that this patch wouldn't break backwards compatibility,
> I don't really see what the argument is for changing the recommended
> spelling of the command.
> The difficulty with doing what you've done here is that it creates
> unnecessary cross-version incompatibilities; for example a 9.5 psql
> being used against a 9.4 server would tab-complete the wrong spelling
> of the option.  Back-patching would change the set of versions for
> which the problem exists, but it wouldn't remove the problem altogether.
> And in fact it'd add new problems, e.g. pg_dumpall output from a 9.3.5
> pg_dumpall failing to load into a 9.3.4 server.  This is not the kind of
> change we customarily back-patch anyway.
> So personally I'd have just made connection_limit be an undocumented
> internal equivalent for CONNECTION LIMIT, and kept the latter as the
> preferred spelling, with no client-side changes.


There is no important reason do hard changes in this moment


>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to