> > 4) Does anyone else have any comments on the proposed re-ordering?
> Since we're painting a shed, does it make sense to put the items in
> alphabetical order for each section?

I thought about that, yes.   However, I find that most items have a logical 
order that is not alphabetical.   Take the WAL section for example:

"fsync" needs to go first, because if it is set to "false" the rest of the WAL 
settings don't matter.

"wal_sync_method" and "wal_buffers" are the "most important" (or, at least, 
most likely to be tinkered with) settings so they sould go immdiately after.

"checkpoint_segments, checkpoint_timeout, commit_delay, commit_siblings" are 
all directly related and should to appear in that order (which, oddly enough, 
happens to be alphabetical).

"wal_debug" is seldom used outside of Postgresql source development or unusual 
system failures, and should therefore go last.

I have tried to order other parameters by applying the same logic, which 
essentially amounts to:  order by most important/most likely to be changed, 
grouping settings that need to be manipulated together.   I'd be happy to 
hear your comments on my application of that logic.

BTW, everyone:  I do not seem to be receiving any mail since 
the server crash & restoration.  So please cc: any comments directly to me!

-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to