On 3/22/15 4:50 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br> wrote:
>> On 21-03-2015 17:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Now, I have *long* been an advocate that we should ship a "stripped"
>>> PostgreSQL.conf which has only the most commonly used settings, and
>>> leave the rest of the settings in the docs and
>>> share/postgresql/postgresql.conf.advanced. Here's my example of such a
>>> file, tailored to PostgreSQL 9.3:
>>>
>> +1. I agree that common used settings in a postgresql.conf file is
>> useful for newbies. How do we ship it?
>
>
> Fwiw I disagree. I'm a fan of the idea that the default should be an
> empty config file. You should only have to put things in
> postgresql.conf if you want something unusual or specific. We're a
> long way from there but I would rather move towards there than keep
> operating under the assumption that nobody will run Postgres without
> first completing the rite of passage of reviewing every option in
> postgresql.conf to see if it's relevant to their setup.
>
> Apache used to ship with a config full of commented out options and
> going through and figuring out which options needed to be enabled or
> changed was the first step in installing Apache. It was awful. When
> they adopted a strict policy that the default config was empty so the
> only things you need in your config are options to specify what you
> want to serve it became so much easier. I would argue it also
> represents a more professional attitude where the job of the admin is
> to declare only what he wants to happen and how it should differ from
> the norm and the job of the software is to go about its business
> without needing to be set up for normal uses.
+1. Going the route of big default config files just sucks. We should
either just have an empty .conf, or only write stuff that initdb has
tweaked in it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
