On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 19:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 10:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's already in the docs, so if they read it and understand it they can
> >>>>> add it to the postgresql.conf if they so choose.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree with Josh Berkus that vacuum_defer_cleanup_age should be in
> >>>> postgresql.conf. We don't stop listing items just because they are
> >>>> dangerous, e.g. fsync, or to discourage their use. I believe Greg Smith
> >>>> also felt it should be included.
> >>>
> >>> Or, let's put it another way: I've made my opinion clear in the past
> >>> that I think that we ought to ship with a minimal postgresql.conf with
> >>> maybe 15 items in it. If we are going to continue to ship with
> >>> postgresql.conf "kitchen sick" version, however, it should include
> >>> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> As usual, the postgresql.conf is entirely too full. We should ship with
> >> the top 15. If this gains any traction, I am sure that Greg Smith,
> >> Berkus and I could provide that list with nothing but a care bear
> >> discussion.
> >
> > +1 ... but, why the 'top 15'? why not just those that are uncommented to
> > start with, and leave those that are commented out as 'in the docs' ... ?
>
> +1 to either proposal.
I think top 15 was arbitrary. The point, is that our postgresql.conf is
ridiculous. For 99% of installations, only a dozen to a dozen and a half
of the options are relevant.
>
> ...Robert
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
