On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

max_worker_processes was added in 9.4, so it's been there for two
releases, but it probably is true that few people have set it.
Nevertheless, I don't think there's much evidence that it is a bad
enough name that we really must change it.


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

Reply via email to