From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 00:32:51 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200806010032.53337.peter_e@gmx.net>

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Currently, PostgreSQL,conf and our set of GUC configurations suffer from
> 4 large problems:

As we have talked about it before, you know that I agree that the GUC system 
could use some improvements.  But I'm a bit surprised about some of your 
assessments.

> 1. Most people have no idea how to set these.

Could you clarify this?  I can't really believe that people are incapable of 
editing a configuration file.

> 2. The current postgresql.conf file is a huge mess of 194 options, the
> vast majority of which most users will never touch.

My opinion has always been that we should provide a default file with only the 
essential options instead of all of them.  I see this as a the major problem, 
because people are overwhelmed and consequently don't set anything.

> 3. GUCS lists are kept in 3 different places (guc.c, postgresql.conf,
> and the settings.sgml), which are only synched with each other manually.

While this is not ideal, I can't really see who this is a major problem, at 
least from the perspective of the user.

> 4. We don't seem to be getting any closer to autotuning.

True.  But how does your proposal address this?