Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022C22E0123 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:41:16 -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 19716-01-7 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:40:54 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A772E00AC for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:16:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m550Gth5003847; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m550Gtfn003840; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:16:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:16:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: Tom Lane cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Josh Berkus Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS In-Reply-To: <29525.1212613052@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com> <200806010032.53337.peter_e@gmx.net> <17932.1212415926@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080604131810.GH65238@decibel.org> <4846A483.8000001@pse-consulting.de> <29525.1212613052@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200806/197 X-Sequence-Number: 119310 On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Tom Lane wrote: > The real problem we need to solve is how to allow newbies to have the > system auto-configured to something that more or less solves their > problems. Putting the config settings in XML does not accomplish that, > and neither does putting them inside the database. The subtle issue here is that what makes sense for the database configuration changes over time; there's not just one initial generation and you're done. postgresql.conf files can end up moving from one machine to another for example. I think something that doesn't recognize that reality and move toward a "tune-up" capability as well as initial generation wouldn't be as useful, and that's where putting the settings inside the database helps so much. Also, there's a certain elegance to having a optimization tool that works again either a new installation or an existing one. I personally have zero interest in a one-shot config generator. It just doesn't solve the problems I see in the field. Performance starts out just fine even with the default settings when people first start, and then goes to hell after the system has been running for a while (and possibly moved to another machine). By that point nobody wants to mess with their configuration file unless it's one simple change at a time. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD