Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C36C2E0044 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:42:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38264-03 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:41:55 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC002E0035 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:41:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (190-95-19-91.bk17-dsl.surnet.cl [190.95.19.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m55HhFr0012682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:43:18 -0700 Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CDC9F47C69; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:42:09 -0400 (CLT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:42:09 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Greg Smith Cc: Magnus Hagander , Heikki Linnakangas , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS Message-ID: <20080605174209.GL16502@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <20080604131810.GH65238@decibel.org> <4846A483.8000001@pse-consulting.de> <29525.1212613052@sss.pgh.pa.us> <48472E47.7030701@dunslane.net> <20080605162400.GF16502@alvh.no-ip.org> <48481CBF.6040602@enterprisedb.com> <48481E3A.4010306@hagander.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:43:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200806/244 X-Sequence-Number: 119357 Greg Smith wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> We really need a "proper API" for it, and the stuff in pgAdmin isn't >> even enough to base one on. > > I would be curious to hear your opinion on whether the GUC overhaul > discussed in this thread is a useful precursor to building such a proper > API. I must say that I am confused by this thread. What's the discussed GUC overhaul? Things that I vaguely recall being proposed are (in the order they came to mind): (1) Add a lot more comments to each setting (2) Add documentation links to each setting (3) Move more frequently used settings to the top of the file (4) Ship different sample config files (5) Create an expert system to suggest tuning (6) Other random ideas (XML, settings in database, others?) To me, there are two ideas that are doable right now, which are (2) and (4). (1) seems to be a step backwards in pg_hba.conf experience, and we would have to maintain duplicate documentation. (3) seems messy. (5) is a lot of work; do we have volunteers? As for (6), the two examples I give can be easily dismissed. (2) and (4) do not seem necessary to get the config API built. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support