On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 28 June 2012 19:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> You think it will confuse users less if we start telling them to use
>>> something that we have a very long history of telling them not to use?
>> I don't buy this line of reasoning at all. If we're going to rename
>> the GUC, it should be for accuracy, not PR value. If we start
>> renaming something every time we improve it, we're going to go nuts.
>> We improved lots of things in 9.2; they didn't all get renamed.
> That is a false equivalence, and you know it.
A false equivalence between what and what?
> Who said anything about PR value? I'm concerned with not confusing users.
My point here is that we don't normally rename things because they
work better than they used to. Whether that is called PR value or not
confusing users, we don't normally do it.
We sometimes rename things because they do something *different* than
what they used to do. But not just because they work better.
Anyway, it seems that no one other than you and I is very excited
about renaming this for whatever reason, so maybe we should leave it
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-06-28 19:57:26|
|Subject: Re: embedded list v2|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-06-28 19:54:42|
|Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers|