On 22/03/15 08:14, Jaime Casanova wrote:
El mar 21, 2015 2:00 AM, "Mark Kirkwood" <mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz <mailto:mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz>> escribió: > > On 21/03/15 19:28, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> >> what about not removing it but not showing it in postgresql.conf? as a >> side note, i wonder why trace_sort is not in postgresql.conf... >> other option is to make it a compile setting, that why if you want to >> have it you need to compile and postgres' developers do that routinely >> anyway >> > > -1 > > Personally I'm against hiding *any* settings. Choosing sensible defaults - yes! Hiding them - that reeks of secret squirrel nonsense and overpaid Oracle dbas that knew the undocumented settings for various capabilities. I think/hope that no open source project will try to emulate that meme! > That ship has already sailed. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/runtime-config-developer.html
Not really - they are documented in the official doc repo (that was the point I was making I think), and +1 for adding or improving the documentation for some of the more dangerous ones!
While I'm against removing or hiding settings, I have no problem with shipping/generating a postgresql.conf that has *only* the non default settings therein, as that requires people to look at the docs where (of course) we have some sensible discussion about how to set the rest of 'em.
I note that Mysql ship a pretty minimal confile files there days (5.5, 5.6) on Ubuntu, and that seems to cause no particular problem.
regards Mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
