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. >
+1 There is no important reason do hard changes in this moment Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
