"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe I shouldn't put words in Andres' mouth, but I don't think that by
>> "indefinitely" he meant "forever". I read that more as "until some
>> positive reason to remove it arrives". I could imagine that at some point
>> we decide to do a wholesale cleanup of backwards-compatibility GUCs, and
>> then we'd zap this one along with others.
>Hand-waving from me but I see a "positive reason" being that someone wants
> to write and commit a patch that does not play nicely with the old
> behavior.
Sure, that's also possible. But no such patch is on the table now.
regards, tom lane
