Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II

Justin Clift wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>>"wal_debug" is seldom used outside of Postgresql source development or unusual
>>>system failures, and should therefore go last.
>>
>> BTW, it occurs to me that wal_debug is one of the hacker-only variables
>> that probably ought not be documented at all. I cannot imagine any use
>> for it for the average DBA.
>
> Um, not documenting it is probably not a good move for us, however putting it at the end in a section marked "Developer Focused" or something similar would
> probably have the right mix of messages. i.e. "hands off" + "not a performance tweak", etc.

No, not documenting it IS a good move. 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
and a secretary once managed to get a 5.25'' floppy "into" an IBM PS/2
... er ... yes, there was some kind of venting slot somewhere ... I did
not try to explain the difference between a floppy drive and a venting
slot to her, I converted it to the "right" format and the next time she
came with a 5.25'' floppy directly to me :-)

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #