Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2008-08-19T16:12:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> Using that to include a file that's full of comments anyway (which is >> all that's left in postgresql.conf at this time, I'm sure) just seems. >> Well. Sub-optimal. > Yes but part of this idea is valid. The fact is the majority of the > postgresql.conf parameters don't need to be in there by default. It > just makes the file an intimidating mess for newbies and I am not > talking about just n00bs but also people coming from other environments > such as MSSQL. Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)? I've never thought that the current contents were especially useful as documentation; the kindest thing you can say about 'em is that they are duplicative of the SGML documentation. For novices they aren't even adequately duplicative. regards, tom lane