Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think from the user's point of view it does what it did before.
>> The fact that the actual content of WAL changed was an implementation
>> detail that users weren't aware of. Now that we have two interacting
>> features that affect WAL contents, it's getting too hard to hide that
>> from users --- but I see no need to rename archive_mode.
> Well, when people use their same settings that they used for 8.4 and
> it doesn't work, you can field those reports...
I would expect that they'll get an error message that makes it clear
enough what to do ;-). In any case, changing the name is hardly going
to fix things so that 8.4 settings will still work, so why are you
giving that case as an argument for it?
regards, tom lane
