On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:12:47PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > I'm really not in favor of having comments in the conf file that
> > try to tell you about stuff you might want to set, much less why.
> > That task properly belongs to some kind of introductory chapter in
> > the SGML docs. Novice DBAs are unlikely even to *find* the config
> > file, let alone look inside it, if there's not an introductory
> > chapter telling them about Things They Ought To Do.
>
> Ugh, you are heading in the wrong direction. The configuration file
> should be well documented: moving the documentation further away
> from it is the wrong idea, especially if it means firing up a web
> browser to do so. As link is fine, and recommended, but a "bare"
> configuration file would be far, far worse than the mess we have
> today. I like Josh B's version a lot. It's not perfect (I'd add a
> URL for each config for example), but it's a great start. Text
> space is cheap, and having a consistent, well-documented,
> easy-to-read conf file is something worth shooting for.
How about a man page for postgresql.conf? We already ship very nice
man pages for SQL commands. While we're at it, we could ship one for
pg_hba.conf, too :)
What do we do about man pages on Windows?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
