Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 01/29/2017 04:07 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> 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.
+1 Maybe it is better not to backpatch farther than 9.6 - I think it is good to be conservative about backpatching, and, as you say, the effect won't be noticable much before 9.6. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
