Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I just want to point out that if we change #1, we're breaking >> postgresql.conf compatibility for, IMHO, not a whole lot of benefit. >> I'd just leave it alone.
> We can add the old name as a synonym in guc.c to maintain compatibility. I doubt this is much of an issue at this point; max_worker_processes has only been there a release or so, and surely there are very few people explicitly setting it, given its limited use-case up to now. It will be really hard to change it after 9.6, but I think we could still get away with that today. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers