Re: Overhauling GUCS

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: 2008-05-31 17:51:41
Message-ID: DFB26BD0-AD37-44F7-9255-BA78EC7E7FF8@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On May 31, 2008, at 09:23, Tom Lane wrote:

>> 1. Most people have no idea how to set these.
>> 2. The current postgresql.conf file is a huge mess of 194 options,
>> the
>> vast majority of which most users will never touch.
>> 3. GUCS lists are kept in 3 different places (guc.c, postgresql.conf,
>> and the settings.sgml), which are only synched with each other
>> manually.
>> 4. We don't seem to be getting any closer to autotuning.
>
> The proposal doesn't actually solve any of those problems.

It solves #2 at least.

> I disagree with doing any of this. It doesn't result in any useful
> reduction in maintenance effort, and what it does do is make it
> impossible to keep control over the detailed layout, formatting,
> commenting etc in a sample postgresql.conf. Nor do I think that
> "generate a whole config file from scratch" is going to be a useful
> behavior for tuning problems --- how will you merge it with what
> you had before?

I'd love to see these issues resolved. The current postgresql.conf is
way over the top. Might you have a better idea?

Thanks,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-05-31 18:44:37 Re: Overhauling GUCS
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-05-31 17:49:09 Re: Proposal - Collation at database level