On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:12:47PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > I'm really not in favor of having comments in the conf file that > > try to tell you about stuff you might want to set, much less why. > > That task properly belongs to some kind of introductory chapter in > > the SGML docs. Novice DBAs are unlikely even to *find* the config > > file, let alone look inside it, if there's not an introductory > > chapter telling them about Things They Ought To Do. > > Ugh, you are heading in the wrong direction. The configuration file > should be well documented: moving the documentation further away > from it is the wrong idea, especially if it means firing up a web > browser to do so. As link is fine, and recommended, but a "bare" > configuration file would be far, far worse than the mess we have > today. I like Josh B's version a lot. It's not perfect (I'd add a > URL for each config for example), but it's a great start. Text > space is cheap, and having a consistent, well-documented, > easy-to-read conf file is something worth shooting for.
How about a man page for postgresql.conf? We already ship very nice man pages for SQL commands. While we're at it, we could ship one for pg_hba.conf, too :) What do we do about man pages on Windows? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
