X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D463A4BB7 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:04:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23010-07 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:04:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cookie.varlena.com (adsl-64-142-36-103.sonic.net [64.142.36.103]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519F63A4B8D for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:04:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: by cookie.varlena.com (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.3 (i386), from userid 500) id 9D0C8394B8; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:05:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:05:11 -0800 From: elein To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Documentation of server configuration Message-ID: <20041113170511.C22405@cookie.varlena.com> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org References: <200411132120.51294.peter_e@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200411132120.51294.peter_e@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/24 X-Sequence-Number: 2659 Is it possible to have an alphabetical hyperlink index to the sections? I really like that it is in the same order as those in the file and the like parameters are grouped. But the table is too big and needs an index for faster access... no wait that was the database...no wait... elein On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 09:20:51PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I've just spent a day working through the current set of server > configuration parameters, and I think that the documentation at > has > reached its peak of unusability. I haven't been able to find a single > parameter all day except by using a text search over the file. > > A couple of obvious faults: > > - There are too many sections. > > - The sections don't have any obvious order. > > - The subsections don't have any obvious order. > > - The lists of individual parameters inside the sections don't have any > order. > > - If a parameter has a list of possible values, the values are not > listed in a consistent order. > > I have made an attempt and reformatted the whole section into one big > alphabetical list, and while that has obvious drawbacks, I feel that > it's already much more usable than what we have now. > > Other ideas? > > -- > Peter Eisentraut > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match >