Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
Date: 2003-06-02 17:36:43
Message-ID: 9627.1054575403@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Agreed, postgresql.conf and the documentation should match. Guc.c needs
> to be in variable _type_ order, so I don't know what can be done
> there.

We could make each table in guc.c follow the logical ordering Josh
suggests for its subset of the variables. But on the other hand, it'd
be just as defensible to put each table in alphabetical order. I'd vote
for doing one or the other rather than leaving the kinda-random order
that's there now.

Josh's proposal looks pretty good to me in general, though some of the
details seem a little odd. "max_files_per_process" doesn't belong under
lock management (perhaps better to stick it under Memory Usage, possibly
renaming that category to Resource Consumption) and the Query Tuning/Other
section seems kinda random. But "miscellaneous" variables are always a
bear to classify.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-06-02 17:54:21 Re: Postgres config file: autocommit = off
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-06-02 17:26:17 Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-06-02 18:04:01 Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
Previous Message Kris Jurka 2003-06-02 17:34:28 Re: array support patch phase 1 patch