Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off
Date: 2016-08-16 12:46:46
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYLv0btq6sGzROy5iu+6MwQ9gUh1_yaEp4jeTwBErhggQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, or
> back further?

I would have thought this was a master-only change, although
back-patching it to 9.6 would be OK if it gets done RSN. I don't
think changing GUC defaults in released branches is a good idea.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2016-08-16 12:51:45 Re: Let's get rid of the separate minor version numbers for shlibs
Previous Message David Steele 2016-08-16 12:45:13 Re: patch proposal