Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Date: 2008-08-19 16:12:16
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> Using that to include a file that's full of comments anyway (which is
>> all that's left in postgresql.conf at this time, I'm sure) just seems.
>> Well. Sub-optimal.

> Yes but part of this idea is valid. The fact is the majority of the
> postgresql.conf parameters don't need to be in there by default. It
> just makes the file an intimidating mess for newbies and I am not
> talking about just n00bs but also people coming from other environments
> such as MSSQL.

Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default
postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)?
I've never thought that the current contents were especially useful
as documentation; the kindest thing you can say about 'em is that they
are duplicative of the SGML documentation. For novices they aren't
even adequately duplicative.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Drake 2008-08-19 16:22:01 Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-08-19 16:05:20 Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures