This time *with* the attachment.
> All,
>
> I'm working on cleaning up postgresql.conf and pg_settings for the
> release. Attached is a sample WIP. It's not in patch form because I'm
> not done yet; I've just been editing postgresql.conf and need to fix the
> docs and pg_settings to match.
>
> Issues encountered and changes made:
>
> PostgreSQL.conf
> ----------------
>
> suggestions: added section with the 7 most important obvious settings at
> the top and suggestions on how to calculate them. If people like this,
> I'll add it to the Tutorial in the docs as well.
>
> seq_scan_cost: this is independant of all of the other _costs. I can't
> think of any way in which that doesn't make the whole set of costs
> unmanageable. For example, if you want to change seq_scan_cost in order
> to make query cost more-or-less match up with ms execution time, you
> have to modify all 6 settings. If we do implement per-tablespace
> costs, then we'll need per-tablespace random_page_cost as well. Or am I
> missing something?
>
> (change requires restart): this phrase appears over 20 times in the
> notes. This is enough times to be really repetitive and take up a lot
> of scrolling space, while not actually covering all startup-time
> parameters. We should either (a) remove all such notes and rely on
> docs, or (b) make an annotation symbol (e.g. *R) and mark 100% of them.
> Votes?
>
> Vacuum: all vacuum & autovacuum parameters put under their own section.
>
> Client Cost Defaults: this section became a "catch-all" for all userset
> parameters which people weren't sure what to do with. I've divided it
> into logical subsections, and moved some parameters to other sections
> where they logically belong (for example, explain_pretty_print belongs
> in Query Tuning).
>
> pg_settings issues
> --------------------
>
> transaction_isolation and transaction_read_only appear more than once in
> the pg_settings pseudo_table. The setting column is supposed to be
> unique.
>
>
> Given the amount of cleanup/improvement which I'm seeing as necessary
> for the GUCs, I'm wondering if I put this off too long for 8.3.
>
> --Josh
>
>
>
>