From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
In-reply-to: <20160531202742.GA896974@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20160531202742.GA896974@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 16:27:42 -0400"
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:58:14 -0400
Message-ID: <5641.1464731894@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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