Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Message-Id: <DFB26BD0-AD37-44F7-9255-BA78EC7E7FF8@kineticode.com>
From: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <16866.1212251015@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:51:41 -0700
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com> <16866.1212251015@sss.pgh.pa.us>

On May 31, 2008, at 09:23, Tom Lane wrote:

>> 1. Most people have no idea how to set these.
>> 2. The current postgresql.conf file is a huge mess of 194 options,  
>> the
>> vast majority of which most users will never touch.
>> 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.
>> 4. We don't seem to be getting any closer to autotuning.
>
> The proposal doesn't actually solve any of those problems.

It solves #2 at least.

> I disagree with doing any of this.  It doesn't result in any useful
> reduction in maintenance effort, and what it does do is make it
> impossible to keep control over the detailed layout, formatting,
> commenting etc in a sample postgresql.conf.  Nor do I think that
> "generate a whole config file from scratch" is going to be a useful
> behavior for tuning problems --- how will you merge it with what
> you had before?

I'd love to see these issues resolved. The current postgresql.conf is  
way over the top. Might you have a better idea?

Thanks,

David