Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf

Agreed, postgresql.conf and the documentation should match. Guc.c needs
to be in variable _type_ order, so I don't know what can be done there.

The current postgresql.conf ordering is based on my reordering a few
releases back to make it clearer. Feel free to improve it.

I don't think people change _that_ _many_ postgresql.conf settings, so
reordering should be OK with them, especially if they get a clearer
output.

Just to throw in a wrench, consider that SHOW ALL shows the settings in
alphabetical order. I think that is OK, but I thought I should mention
it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > I have developed the following patch to address these issues. I have
> > removed the lock GUC settings from postgresql.conf, as suggested. (They
> > aren't even enabled in the general builds.)
>
> Great! Just to keep you from getting complacent, what follows is a proposal
> for re-ordering the settings in the postgresql.conf.sample file. (sorry for
> replying to your thread on a different list; I'm not subscribed to PATCHES).
>
> THE PROPOSAL: We should re-order the settings in postgresql.conf.sample in
> order to make more logical groupings per the attached outline. The online
> documenation should be then re-sorted to match this order.
>
> THE REASONS WHY: Our current ordering of settings in the CONF file is largely
> based on history (i.e. based on when settings were added rather than any more
> logical order). This makes understanding the CONF file baffling to
> newcomers, and even experienced DBAs can miss important settings because they
> are not grouped with their logical associates.
> For that matter, the current ordering can be baffling to developers. When I
> started this thread, Tom wasn't sure that CONF and GUC.c corresponded 100%.
> And no wonder! postgresql.conf.sample is in one order, the "Run-time
> configuration" doc page in a second order, and GUC.c in yet a third order!
> It took me most of an afternoon just to match up the various options. The
> CONF file and the docs should be in the same order, leaving us only two
> orderings to keep track of.
>
> THE ARGUMENT AGAINST: This would be an annoyance for anyone who "diffs" their
> conf files as part of upgrading. I cannot think of any other objection,
> except for the work involved, which I am quite willing to help with.
>
> THE OUTLINE ATTACHED: is my proposed ordering. I've put it in outline form,
> so that the groupings I'm using are obvious; I feel that the final
> postgresql.conf.sample should keep the group and subgroup headers as comments
> for additional clarity. I welcome improvements and suggestions -- the only
> thing I'm attached to is the idea of logical re-ordering, not this particular
> order.
> PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OUTLINE IS BASED ON 7.3.2 postgresql.conf. My laptop
> is in the shop and I don't have a copy of 7.4 cvs on my back-up computer.
> If my proposal is accepted in general, I will flesh it out for 7.4 before
> June 15.
>
> COMMITTMENT TO FOLLOW-UP: I will also be posting an article entitled "The
> Annotated PostgreSQL.conf" either on Techdocs or at Elein's web site based on
> this ordering to help people decipher their .conf files. This will include
> the official docs, comments from the -PERFORMANCE mailing list, the command
> line options, and whether or not each variable can be SET by the user.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073