Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A444E2E00CC for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:23:23 -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 88860-05-4 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:23:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp.kineticode.com (host-201.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.201]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0192E006D for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:22:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (c-24-21-175-208.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.21.175.208]) by smtp.kineticode.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95FD05081BE; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "Greg Smith" , "Aidan Van Dyk" , Message-Id: <3D652D3F-4642-4DC6-B883-E09240F196CE@kineticode.com> From: "David E. Wheeler" To: Heikki Linnakangas In-Reply-To: <4848D447.10005@enterprisedb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 References: <29525.1212613052@sss.pgh.pa.us> <48472E47.7030701@dunslane.net> <20080605162400.GF16502@alvh.no-ip.org> <48481CBF.6040602@enterprisedb.com> <48481E3A.4010306@hagander.net> <20080605174209.GL16502@alvh.no-ip.org> <20080605212129.GI14498@yugib.highrise.ca> <3F927D52-A0FD-4575-8D24-F0F70C459235@kineticode.com> <4848D447.10005@enterprisedb.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200806/293 X-Sequence-Number: 119406 On Jun 5, 2008, at 23:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > What comments do we consider machine-generated? Just the ones used > to comment out settings, like > > #shared_buffers = 32MB > > or something else? Those and documentation comments. > If the automatic tool lets alone all other kind of comments, I think > we're fine. In fact, it wouldn't necessarily need to modify those > comments either, it could simply add a new setting line below that: > > #shared_buffers = 32MB > shared_buffers = 1024MB Well, we've been talking about having varying levels of documentation in the comments of the file based on the options passed to the configuration program. I think that these are the primary concern, though Greg, please do correct me if I'm mistaken. > For extra safety, it could comment out old settings, perhaps with > something like this: > > #shared_buffers = 32MB > #shared_buffers = 1024MB # commented out by wizard on 2008-06-05 > shared_buffers = 2048MB > > This would preserve a full change history in the file. It would > become quite messy after a lo of changes, of course, but a user can > trim the history by hand if he wants to. I guess that could be a feature. Personally, I use a vcs system for that. Best, David