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