Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...

Michael Pohl wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
>
> > At the very least, if there is good documentation for these parameters,
> > maybe the conf file should provide a link to this info.
>
> I believe that is what Josh is proposing:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-07/msg00102.php
>
> > [Apache httpd] uses a three phase (if not more) documentation level.
> > The .conf file contains detailed instructions in an easy to read and
> > not-to-jargon-ish structure. The docs provide detailed tutorials and
> > papers that expand on configuration params in an easy to read format.
> > Both of these refer to the thorough reference manual that breaks each
> > possible option down into it's nitty gritty details so that a user can
> > get more information if they so desire.
>
> I agree that Apache's approach is primo. Often the .conf comments are
> enough to jog my memory about a directive I haven't used for a while. Or
> the comments are enough to let me know I don't need a directive, or that I
> need to go to the manual and read more. I appreciate that.

Isn't that what we have now --- isn't postgresql.conf clear enough to
jog people's memory.

--
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