Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
Tom, > Josh's proposal looks pretty good to me in general, though some of the > details seem a little odd. "max_files_per_process" doesn't belong under > lock management (perhaps better to stick it under Memory Usage, possibly > renaming that category to Resource Consumption) and the Query Tuning/Other > section seems kinda random. But "miscellaneous" variables are always a > bear to classify. OK, sure. I'll track everybody's suggestions an post a revised ordering tommorrow or wednesday. One of my objectives was to avoid having a "Miscellaneous" section, as I find such sections tend to grow with time. I couldn't avoid the Query Tuning/Other section, though, or for that matter Client Connection/Other; the options named definitely belong in that category, but don't have an appropriate sub-category that I can think of. Anybody see anything else that should be moved? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Agreed, postgresql.conf and the documentation should match. Guc.c needs > to be in variable _type_ order, so I don't know what can be done > there. We could make each table in guc.c follow the logical ordering Josh suggests for its subset of the variables. But on the other hand, it'd be just as defensible to put each table in alphabetical order. I'd vote for doing one or the other rather than leaving the kinda-random order that's there now. Josh's proposal looks pretty good to me in general, though some of the details seem a little odd. "max_files_per_process" doesn't belong under lock management (perhaps better to stick it under Memory Usage, possibly renaming that category to Resource Consumption) and the Query Tuning/Other section seems kinda random. But "miscellaneous" variables are always a bear to classify. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
Bruce, > I don't think people change _that_ _many_ postgresql.conf settings, so > reordering should be OK with them, especially if they get a clearer > output. Yeah. I put in the objection because Elein already made it to me. I also think that most people don't adjust *enough* Postgresql.conf settings, which is one thing I'm trying to change. > Just to throw in a wrench, consider that SHOW ALL shows the settings in > alphabetical order. I think that is OK, but I thought I should mention > it. I think it's OK too. Presumably, people running SHOW ALL are looking for a particular setting, not trying to tweak everything. I considered simply alpha-ordering the CONF file. However, too many options have a logical grouping that really need to be adjusted together and are spread wide apart in the alphabet (WAL_files and Checkpoint_segments, for example). For that matter, I dealt with a couple of distros of SAMBA that decided to "simplify" smb.conf by alphabetizing the settings, and ended up reordering them on my own. Bleah. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
