Tom,
> Doesn't sound like a good idea, but maybe there's a case for a comment
> there saying "these are the most important ones to look at"?
Yeah, probably need to do that. Seems user-unfriendly, but loading a foot gun
by having some options appear twice in the file seems much worse. I'll also
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the more hypothetical basis I was thinking of adding a section at the top
> with the 7-9 most common options that people *need* to set; this would make
> PostgreSQL.conf much more accessable but would result in duplicate options
> which might cause so
Tom,
> Do you have a better organizing principle than what's there now?
It's mostly detail stuff: putting VACUUM and Autovac together, breaking up
some subsections that now have too many options in them into grouped.
Client Connection Defaults has somehow become a catchall secton for *any*
US
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This brings up another point. With the increased number of .conf
> options, the file is getting hard to read again. I'd like to do another
> reorganization, but I don't really want to break people's diff scripts.
Do you have a better organizing princ
Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
This brings up another point. With the increased number of .conf
options, the file is getting hard to read again. I'd like to do another
reorganization, but I don't really want to break people's diff scripts.
Should I worry about that?
As a point of feedback, aut
All,
This brings up another point. With the increased number of .conf
options, the file is getting hard to read again. I'd like to do another
reorganization, but I don't really want to break people's diff scripts.
Should I worry about that?
--Josh
---(end of broa
