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.
>
> michael
>

One thing that may also help, is to include more sample .conf files.
For example, you could include settings that would be commonly seen for
decicated databases with generic specs and another with less resources
and not dedicated for use with Postgres.

This would allow users to see how certain setting changes will work.
The default .conf is great if you want to setup a small test bed, but
for a real life example chances are it won't exactly be what your
looking for.

Martin Foster
Creator/Designer Ethereal Realms
martin(at)ethereal-realms(dot)org