On 12/18/15 11:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
"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.
>​Hand-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.


Someone (Tom?) mentioned upthread that if we wanted to do cleanup it should be more than just one GUC, and I agree with that, and I'm willing to investigate when the current compat GUCs went in and create a patch to remove the really old ones. My inclination would be to just do this as part of 10.0. (And I agree with Robert's comments about parallel being the most likely driver for bumping to 10.0).
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to