Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.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. See VACUUM FULL for a recent counterexample --- we basically jacked it up and drove a new implementation underneath, but we didn't change the name, despite the fact that we were obsoleting a whole lot more folk knowledge than exists around commit_delay. Of course, there were application-compatibility reasons not to rename that command, which wouldn't apply so much to commit_delay. But still, we have precedent for expecting that we can fix external documentation rather than trying to code around whatever it says. 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