Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Agreed, postgresql.conf and the documentation should match.  Guc.c needs
to be in variable _type_ order, so I don't know what can be done there.

The current postgresql.conf ordering is based on my reordering a few
releases back to make it clearer.  Feel free to improve it.

I don't think people change _that_ _many_ postgresql.conf settings, so
reordering should be OK with them, especially if they get a clearer
output.

Just to throw in a wrench, consider that SHOW ALL shows the settings in
alphabetical order.  I think that is OK, but I thought I should mention
it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> > I have developed the following patch to address these issues.  I have
> > removed the lock GUC settings from postgresql.conf, as suggested.  (They
> > aren't even enabled in the general builds.)
> 
> Great!   Just to keep you from getting complacent, what follows is a proposal 
> for re-ordering the settings in the postgresql.conf.sample file. (sorry for 
> replying to your thread on a different list; I'm not subscribed to PATCHES).  
> 
> THE PROPOSAL:  We should re-order the settings in postgresql.conf.sample in 
> order to make more logical groupings per the attached outline.  The online 
> documenation should be then re-sorted to match this order.
> 
> THE REASONS WHY:  Our current ordering of settings in the CONF file is largely 
> based on history (i.e. based on when settings were added rather than any more 
> logical order).   This makes understanding the CONF file baffling to 
> newcomers, and even experienced DBAs can miss important settings because they 
> are not grouped with their logical associates.
>     For that matter, the current ordering can be baffling to developers.  When I 
> started this thread, Tom wasn't sure that CONF and GUC.c corresponded 100%.  
> And no wonder!   postgresql.conf.sample is in one order, the "Run-time 
> configuration" doc page in a second order, and GUC.c in yet a third order!   
> It took me most of an afternoon just to match up the various options.  The 
> CONF file and the docs should be in the same order, leaving us only two 
> orderings to keep track of.
> 
> THE ARGUMENT AGAINST:  This would be an annoyance for anyone who "diffs" their 
> conf files as part of upgrading.  I cannot think of any other objection, 
> except for the work involved, which I am quite willing to help with.
> 
> THE OUTLINE ATTACHED:  is my proposed ordering.  I've put it in outline form, 
> so that the groupings I'm using are obvious; I feel that the final 
> postgresql.conf.sample should keep the group and subgroup headers as comments 
> for additional clarity.    I welcome improvements and suggestions -- the only 
> thing I'm attached to is the idea of logical re-ordering, not this particular 
> order.
>     PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OUTLINE IS BASED ON 7.3.2 postgresql.conf.  My laptop 
> is in the shop and I don't have a copy of 7.4 cvs on my back-up computer.   
> If my proposal is accepted in general, I will flesh it out for 7.4 before 
> June 15.
> 
> COMMITTMENT TO FOLLOW-UP:  I will also be posting an article entitled "The 
> Annotated PostgreSQL.conf" either on Techdocs or at Elein's web site based on 
> this ordering to help people decipher their .conf files.   This will include 
> the official docs, comments from the -PERFORMANCE mailing list, the command 
> line options, and whether or not each variable can be SET by the user.
> 
> -- 
> Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073