On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 07:26:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:38:16PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> The proposal is to document in versions 9.4 to 11 that the recommended > >> value > >> for the setting is 2ms while for reasons of continuity the default in these > >> versions is 20ms. > >> I don't really see any harm in it. Its not like the choice to reduce the > >> value > >> was made because of new features introduced in 12 - it was a re-evaluation > >> of a > >> 15 year old default. > > > Well, we really need to have some general discussion about whether > > changing defaults in major releases should trigger a mention to change > > the defaults in back branches. This is something that would have to be > > discussed on the hackers list. > > It's not immediately obvious that the new default value established in > version N is appropriate for version N-minus-several. Certainly, whatever > testing was done to justify the new default wouldn't have been done on old > versions; and there might have been relevant changes. > > In short: nope, I'm not on board with blindly back-patching such > recommendations.
That was my analysis too. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +