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