Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Joshua Drake wrote:
I kind of agree with this but actually think we should have the bare
minimum comments in the file. Why? Because our documentation links are
static. Each setting should have the URL to the full documentation on a
particular setting.
Ugh, why so much context switching? Put the docs next to the setting. URLs
are nice but not necessary. If you are arguing for minimum comments in
conf files, please make a patch for pg_hba.conf ;)
Hah! Well I don't know that a minimum of comments is what I am arguing
as much as not too much comments. The comments in general in the
postgresql.conf are useless unless you have previous knowledge. I really
think that if we take advantage of the fact that we have static URLs
that life would be easier overall.
* Create a tool, or at least a best practices, for controlling and tracking
changes to the file.
This I disagree with. There are plenty of tools to handle this should
someone really want to. SVN, CVS, parrot, etc... Let systems management
be the domain of systems management.
Well, perhaps just a note in the docs at least that one might want to put
postgresql.conf in version control.
I could certainly buy into this. No reason we can't help people better
administrators. I would suggest a link to a static wiki page (on
wiki.pg) that would link to each option?
I've seen people not doing so more often
than you would think. Perhaps because they are DBAs and not sysadmins? I also
meant a tool to do things like verify that the changes are valid, as someone
else mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
pg_ctl -D data check?
I would +1 that. Including (in later releases):
WARNING: You specify 66536 for shared buffers but you only have 131072
of memory. Consider decreasing the parameter.
Obviously we would need more non math friendly wording.
* It might be nice to mention other ways to reload the file, such as
'service postgresql reload', or whatever Windows uses.
I think a url to the docs is a better idea here.
Good point. Maybe a sort of "DBA basics" page in the docs is warranted for
things like this.
Yeah I could buy into this.
>>> * Since the executable is now named "postgres" (thank goodness we got
rid of "postmaster"), the file should be named 'postgres.conf'. This would
also be a way to quickly distinguish 'old' vs 'new' style conf files if
we end up making major changes to it.
It was never postmaster.conf (that I can recall). I don't see the issue
here. Consider apache... It isn't apache.conf.
Not saying it ever was postmaster.conf: just that I'm glad we finally
changed the name. As for the Apache project, the httpd executable reads the
httpd.conf file. Hence, one might expect the postgres executable to read a
postgres.conf file.
Maybe, but I think I would need more convincing.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
