| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II |
| Date: | 2003-06-10 17:28:38 |
| Message-ID: | 200306101028.39195.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan,
> No, not documenting it IS a good move.
I couldn't disagree more. Undocumented options? Who are we, Microsoft?
> If there's a button people will
> press it, if there's a switch people will turn it on and if there's a
> slot people will stick in whatever they have ... believe it or not, I
> have found a Xmas cookie in the floppy drive of a consultant's notebook
<snip>
These kinds of people don't read the documentation in the first place, so
we're in no danger from them.
I can definitely see an argument that the "developer" switches should be
documented on a different page of the docs from "Run-Time Configuration".
But the idea of having GUCs that aren't documented at all, anywhere, is a
very anti-Open Source idea.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin D. Weinberg | 2003-06-10 17:32:53 | Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql & AMD x86-64 |
| Previous Message | Martin D. Weinberg | 2003-06-10 17:16:48 | Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql & AMD x86-64 |