Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II

Rod,

> > 4) Does anyone else have any comments on the proposed re-ordering?
>
> Since we're painting a shed, does it make sense to put the items in
> alphabetical order for each section?

I thought about that, yes. However, I find that most items have a logical
order that is not alphabetical. Take the WAL section for example:

"fsync" needs to go first, because if it is set to "false" the rest of the WAL
settings don't matter.

"wal_sync_method" and "wal_buffers" are the "most important" (or, at least,
most likely to be tinkered with) settings so they sould go immdiately after.

"checkpoint_segments, checkpoint_timeout, commit_delay, commit_siblings" are
all directly related and should to appear in that order (which, oddly enough,
happens to be alphabetical).

"wal_debug" is seldom used outside of Postgresql source development or unusual
system failures, and should therefore go last.

I have tried to order other parameters by applying the same logic, which
essentially amounts to: order by most important/most likely to be changed,
grouping settings that need to be manipulated together. I'd be happy to
hear your comments on my application of that logic.

BTW, everyone: I do not seem to be receiving any Postgresql.org mail since
the server crash & restoration. So please cc: any comments directly to me!

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco