From: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
Date: | 2008-08-19 19:12:47 |
Message-ID: | 14b4028bf1ad4f4ae829bba13002420d@biglumber.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I'm really not in favor of having comments in the conf file that try to
> tell you about stuff you might want to set, much less why. That task
> properly belongs to some kind of introductory chapter in the SGML docs.
> Novice DBAs are unlikely even to *find* the config file, let alone look
> inside it, if there's not an introductory chapter telling them about
> Things They Ought To Do.
Ugh, you are heading in the wrong direction. The configuration file
should be well documented: moving the documentation further away
from it is the wrong idea, especially if it means firing up a web
browser to do so. As link is fine, and recommended, but a "bare"
configuration file would be far, far worse than the mess we have today.
I like Josh B's version a lot. It's not perfect (I'd add a URL for
each config for example), but it's a great start. Text space is cheap, and having
a consistent, well-documented, easy-to-read conf file is something
worth shooting for.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200808191511
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAkirGyEACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgsvwCdH6Hb4KOj47j/Zceb26FgEQUM
J2gAoKE19rLhMpgP17EdJIuUVoKQ7H3u
=//eH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-19 19:21:09 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-08-19 19:01:37 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |