Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tuesday 19 August 2008 14:39:39 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 August 2008 19:12:16 Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default
> > postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)?
>
> Well, my original implementation of GUC had an empty default configuration
> file, which was later craptaculated to its current form based on seemingly
> popular demand. I am very happy to work back toward the empty state, and
> there appears to be growing support for that.

In that case, let me give a big -1 to this idea then. Dealing with a lot of
newbies, they clearly know how to find the postgresql.conf without reading
the docs (it's almost obvious), and once they do they need the helpful
reminders we give for things like which GUC settings require a restart when
they are changed.

Additionally I can't imagine that we really don't want to lay out things like
the logging parameters for people so they can figure out where to look for
the logs. Sure, you can point someone to the docs, but you can't actually
*see* what all of the settings are without logging into the database. Having
the values in the postgresql.conf at least gives people a chance at that
(especially on unfamiliar systems when they are having login trouble).

I'd still like to see us adopt the proposal from some time ago where we stop
commenting out the parameters at all, but short of that, hiding options seems
about the worst choice we could make. If people really don't like large conf
files, it is far easier to delete entries than it is to add them... Greg
Mullane had it right, and Greg Smith was not too far off the mark either.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL