Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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>
Date: 2016-06-01T01:48:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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. 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. ...Robert