Greg Smith wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> We really need a "proper API" for it, and the stuff in pgAdmin isn't >> even enough to base one on. > > I would be curious to hear your opinion on whether the GUC overhaul > discussed in this thread is a useful precursor to building such a proper > API.
I must say that I am confused by this thread. What's the discussed GUC overhaul? Things that I vaguely recall being proposed are (in the order they came to mind): (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. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
