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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
Date
Msg-id 9627.1054575403@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> 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.

We could make each table in guc.c follow the logical ordering Josh
suggests for its subset of the variables.  But on the other hand, it'd
be just as defensible to put each table in alphabetical order.  I'd vote
for doing one or the other rather than leaving the kinda-random order
that's there now.

Josh's proposal looks pretty good to me in general, though some of the
details seem a little odd.  "max_files_per_process" doesn't belong under
lock management (perhaps better to stick it under Memory Usage, possibly
renaming that category to Resource Consumption) and the Query Tuning/Other
section seems kinda random.  But "miscellaneous" variables are always a
bear to classify.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware
Next
From: "Nigel J. Andrews"
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres config file: autocommit = off