Re: Google SoC--Idea Request

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 4/25/06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> >> Personally I would much rather see a tuning advisor tool in more general
> >> use than just provide small/medium/large config setting files.
>
> > True dat.
>
> One thing that has to be figured out before we can go far with this
> is the whole question of how much smarts initdb really ought to have.
> Since a lot of packagers think that initdb should be run
> non-interactively behind the scenes, the obvious solution of "give
> initdb a --small/--medium/--large parameter" does not work all that
> nicely. But on the other hand we can't just tell people to drop in
> replacement config files when the one in place contains initdb-created
> specifics, such as locale settings.
>
> Now that there's a provision for "include" directives in
> postgresql.conf, one way to address this would be to split the
> config info into multiple physical files, some containing purely
> performance-related settings while others consider functionality.
> But that seems more like a wart than a solution to me. I feel that
> we've pushed performance-tuning logic into initdb that probably ought
> not be there, and we ought to factor it out again.

Sounds good. I don't care what we do for 8.2, but we should do
something.

Or am I going to have to bring out my dancing elephant again? :-)

http://www.janetskiles.com/ART/greeting/greet-ani/dancing-elephant.jpg

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +