Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re:
pgsql@mohawksoft.com
From: mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-02-11T17:12:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote: >"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes: > > >>May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about >>tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too >>conservative, >> >> > >It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we >should adjust the defaults. > > > One of the things I did on my Windows install was to have a number of default configuration files, postgresql.conf.small, postgresql.conf.medium, postgresql.conf.large. Rather than choose one, in the "initdb" script, ask for or determine the mount of shared memory, memory, etc. Another pet peeve I have is forcing the configuration files to be in the database directory. We had this argument in 7.1 days, and I submitted a patch that allowed a configuration file to be specified as a command line parameter. One of the things that Oracle does better is separating the "configuration" from the data. It is an easy patch to allow PostgreSQL to use a separate configuration directory, and specify the data directory within the configuration file (The way any logical application works), and, NO, symlinks are not a solution, they are a kludge.