On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I must say that I am confused by this thread. What's the discussed GUC
> overhaul?
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GUCS_Overhaul
I drop that URL in every other message in hopes that people might start
commenting on it directly if they see it enough; the fact that you're
confused says I may need to keep that up :(
> (1) Add a lot more comments to each setting
> (2) Add documentation links to each setting
> (3) Move more frequently used settings to the top of the file
> (4) Ship different sample config files
> (5) Create an expert system to suggest tuning
> (6) Other random ideas (XML, settings in database, others?)
>
> To me, there are two ideas that are doable right now, which are (2) and
> (4). (1) seems to be a step backwards in pg_hba.conf experience, and we
> would have to maintain duplicate documentation. (3) seems messy. (5)
> is a lot of work; do we have volunteers? As for (6), the two examples I
> give can be easily dismissed.
> (2) and (4) do not seem necessary to get the config API built.
(1) is in that proposal but is strictly optional as something to put in
the configuration file itself. The idea behind (2) is to enable tool
authors to have an easier way to suggest where to head for more
information. I'd like for it to be trivial for a tool to say "Suggested
value for <x> is <y>; see
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html
for more information". I know what most of the settings I tinker with do,
but even I'd like it to be easier to find the right spot in the manual;
for newbies it's vital. You are correct that (2) isn't strictly necessary
here, but it's valuable and will be easier to wrap into this than to bolt
on later.
(3) (4) (5) and (6) were off-topic diversions.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
