On 01/29/2017 04:07 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 03:53, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry, this had slipped through the cracks -- I'm having a very hard >> time keeping up with the flow of patches and emails. But it looks >> good to me, except that it seems like CountDBBackends() needs the same >> fix (and probably a corresponding documentation update). > Thanks for looking at this. > > Looks like there's a few other usages of CountDBBackends() which > require background workers to be counted too, so I ended up creating > CountDBConnections() as I didn't really think adding a bool flag to > CountDBBackends was so nice. > > I thought about renaming CountUserBackends() to become > CountUserConnections(), but I've not. Although, perhaps its better to > break any third party stuff that uses that so that authors can review > which behaviour they need rather than have their extension silently > break? > >
I'm inclined to keep this as is - I don't think we should change the names at least in the stable releases. I'm not sure how far back it should be patched. The real effect is going to be felt from 9.6, I think, but arguably for consistency we should change it back to 9.3 or 9.4. Thoughts? Other things being equal I intend to commit this later today. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
