Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf

From: daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Date: 2008-08-19 22:59:42
Message-ID: 20080819225942.GB755@sonic.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:39:39PM +0300, 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.

I like the almost empty file idea.

I often use the include facility to setup postgresql.conf files
that look roughly like this:

#include postgresql_site_policy.conf
#include postgresql_<host_class>.conf
listen_port=9999

where the included files set things like the overall sites logging
preferences and buffer_cache and workmen based on installed memory and
disk system (ex: postgresql_32GB.conf) etc.

-dg

--
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-08-19 23:32:25 Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-08-19 22:53:54 Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures