"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Maybe I shouldn't put words in Andres' mouth, but I don't think that by >> "indefinitely" he meant "forever". I read that more as "until some >> positive reason to remove it arrives". I could imagine that at some point >> we decide to do a wholesale cleanup of backwards-compatibility GUCs, and >> then we'd zap this one along with others.
>âHand-waving from me but I see a "positive reason" being that someone wants > to write and commit a patch that does not play nicely with the old > behavior. Sure, that's also possible. But no such patch is on the table now. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers