From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Hans-Juergen Schoenig" <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
Date: | 2008-08-19 19:39:58 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070808191239g6001c7fejd21de18a20acc82e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I'm really not in favor of having comments in the conf file that try to
> tell you about stuff you might want to set, much less why. That task
> properly belongs to some kind of introductory chapter in the SGML docs.
> Novice DBAs are unlikely even to *find* the config file, let alone look
> inside it, if there's not an introductory chapter telling them about
> Things They Ought To Do.
+1. When I have a question about something PostgreSQL-related, the
first think I do is Read The Fine Manual. The PostgreSQL
documentation is excellent, and one of the highlights of the project
IMO.
I've read through the postgresql.conf file occasionally, but that's a
really difficult way to try to understand the subject. I'd much
rather read through that file in a web browser than a shell window -
but the real advantage of putting it in the documentation is that you
can not only document each specific setting, but also give a broad
overview of relevant topics. A section on "Performance Tuning" in
"Section III: Server Administration" would be really great.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-08-19 19:42:29 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-08-19 19:38:07 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |