On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:12:16 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > Yes but part of this idea is valid. The fact is the majority of the
> > postgresql.conf parameters don't need to be in there by default. It
> > just makes the file an intimidating mess for newbies and I am not
> > talking about just n00bs but also people coming from other
> > environments such as MSSQL.
>
> Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default
> postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)?
I guess it would depend on what initdb puts into it. I don't really
have a problem ripping out all extra stuff as it would help force
people to read the docs but would we still have 150 parameters?. From a
friendly perspective it would make sense to tone it down to the key
parameters such as shared_buffers, listen_address, work_mem etc...
We don't need (for example) to have autovacuum in there by default as it
is always on and configured reasonably at this point. If they need to
change autovacuum they should be reading the docs about it first;
the same with bgwriter, fsync, async_commit etc...
> I've never thought that the current contents were especially useful
> as documentation; the kindest thing you can say about 'em is that they
> are duplicative of the SGML documentation. For novices they aren't
> even adequately duplicative.
I can't argue with this. :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
