Rod, > > 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 Postgresql.org 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]
