On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >> On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > >>> I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to > >>> entirely drop the renegotiation support. > > > >> I think by now we essentially concluded that we should do that. What I'm > >> not sure yet is how: Do we want to rip it out in master and just change > >> the default in the backbranches, or do we want to rip it out in all > >> branches and leave a faux guc in place in the back branches. I vote for > >> the latter, but would be ok with both variants. > > > > I think the former is probably the saner answer. It is less likely to > > annoy people who dislike back-branch changes. And it will be > > significantly less work, considering that that code has changed enough > > that you won't be able to just cherry-pick a removal patch. I also fear > > there's a nonzero chance of breaking stuff if you're careless about doing > > the removal in one or more of the five active back branches ... > > +1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches.
The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the dry if they've uncommented the default value, or changed it. That doesn't seem nice to me. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
