"David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
