| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2008-08-19 16:12:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1880.1219162336@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> Using that to include a file that's full of comments anyway (which is
>> all that's left in postgresql.conf at this time, I'm sure) just seems.
>> Well. Sub-optimal.
> Yes but part of this idea is valid. The fact is the majority of the
> postgresql.conf parameters don't need to be in there by default. It
> just makes the file an intimidating mess for newbies and I am not
> talking about just n00bs but also people coming from other environments
> such as MSSQL.
Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default
postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)?
I've never thought that the current contents were especially useful
as documentation; the kindest thing you can say about 'em is that they
are duplicative of the SGML documentation. For novices they aren't
even adequately duplicative.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-08-19 16:22:01 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-19 16:05:20 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |