On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com.br> wrote: > On 21-03-2015 17:53, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Now, I have *long* been an advocate that we should ship a "stripped" >> PostgreSQL.conf which has only the most commonly used settings, and >> leave the rest of the settings in the docs and >> share/postgresql/postgresql.conf.advanced. Here's my example of such a >> file, tailored to PostgreSQL 9.3: >> > +1. I agree that common used settings in a postgresql.conf file is > useful for newbies. How do we ship it?
Fwiw I disagree. I'm a fan of the idea that the default should be an empty config file. You should only have to put things in postgresql.conf if you want something unusual or specific. We're a long way from there but I would rather move towards there than keep operating under the assumption that nobody will run Postgres without first completing the rite of passage of reviewing every option in postgresql.conf to see if it's relevant to their setup. Apache used to ship with a config full of commented out options and going through and figuring out which options needed to be enabled or changed was the first step in installing Apache. It was awful. When they adopted a strict policy that the default config was empty so the only things you need in your config are options to specify what you want to serve it became so much easier. I would argue it also represents a more professional attitude where the job of the admin is to declare only what he wants to happen and how it should differ from the norm and the job of the software is to go about its business without needing to be set up for normal uses. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers