Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II
Date
Msg-id 200306101028.39195.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jan,

> No, not documenting it IS a good move.

I couldn't disagree more.  Undocumented options?  Who are we, Microsoft?

>  If there's a button people will
> press it, if there's a switch people will turn it on and if there's a
> slot people will stick in whatever they have ... believe it or not, I
> have found a Xmas cookie in the floppy drive of a consultant's notebook
<snip>

These kinds of people don't read the documentation in the first place, so
we're in no danger from them.

I can definitely see an argument that the "developer" switches should be
documented on a different page of the docs from "Run-Time Configuration".
But the idea of having GUCs that aren't documented at all, anywhere, is a
very anti-Open Source idea.

--
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II
Next
From: "Martin D. Weinberg"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql & AMD x86-64