Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
> Joshua Drake wrote:
>> I kind of agree with this but actually think we should have the bare
>> minimum comments in the file. Why? Because our documentation links are
>> static. Each setting should have the URL to the full documentation on a
>> particular setting.
> Ugh, why so much context switching? Put the docs next to the setting. URLs
> are nice but not necessary. If you are arguing for minimum comments in
> conf files, please make a patch for pg_hba.conf ;)
Hah! Well I don't know that a minimum of comments is what I am arguing
as much as not too much comments. The comments in general in the
postgresql.conf are useless unless you have previous knowledge. I really
think that if we take advantage of the fact that we have static URLs
that life would be easier overall.
>>> * Create a tool, or at least a best practices, for controlling and tracking
>>> changes to the file.
>> This I disagree with. There are plenty of tools to handle this should
>> someone really want to. SVN, CVS, parrot, etc... Let systems management
>> be the domain of systems management.
> Well, perhaps just a note in the docs at least that one might want to put
> postgresql.conf in version control.
I could certainly buy into this. No reason we can't help people better
administrators. I would suggest a link to a static wiki page (on
wiki.pg) that would link to each option?
> I've seen people not doing so more often
> than you would think. Perhaps because they are DBAs and not sysadmins? I also
> meant a tool to do things like verify that the changes are valid, as someone
> else mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
pg_ctl -D data check?
I would +1 that. Including (in later releases):
WARNING: You specify 66536 for shared buffers but you only have 131072
of memory. Consider decreasing the parameter.
Obviously we would need more non math friendly wording.
>>> * It might be nice to mention other ways to reload the file, such as
>>> 'service postgresql reload', or whatever Windows uses.
>> I think a url to the docs is a better idea here.
> Good point. Maybe a sort of "DBA basics" page in the docs is warranted for
> things like this.
Yeah I could buy into this.
>>> * Since the executable is now named "postgres" (thank goodness we got
>>> rid of "postmaster"), the file should be named 'postgres.conf'. This would
>>> also be a way to quickly distinguish 'old' vs 'new' style conf files if
>>> we end up making major changes to it.
>> It was never postmaster.conf (that I can recall). I don't see the issue
>> here. Consider apache... It isn't apache.conf.
> Not saying it ever was postmaster.conf: just that I'm glad we finally
> changed the name. As for the Apache project, the httpd executable reads the
> httpd.conf file. Hence, one might expect the postgres executable to read a
> postgres.conf file.
Maybe, but I think I would need more convincing.
Joshua D. Drake
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2008-06-02 05:13:07|
|Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison |
|Previous:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2008-06-02 04:13:58|
|Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison|