Re: postgresql.conf.sample ordering for IO, worker related GUCs

Hi,

On 2025-01-30 21:24:05 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On January 30, 2025 8:55:36 PM EST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> While working on polishing the AIO patchset, I was trying to figure out where
> >> to fit the new GUCs. So far I had a new "top-level" #--- style section named
> >> "WIP AIO GUC docs" which I suspect you all won't let me get away with.
> >> There is an existing (sub-)section which already has a few related GUCs and
> >> could fit AIO related ones.
> >
> >I think the normal theory for postgresql.conf.sample is that it should
> >match the organization of config.sgml. What are you planning there?
>
> Pretty much the same. I.e. I'm thinking that the worker stuff should be it's
> own subsection and that the existing IO parameters should be moved to either
> a new subsection or a new top level section. But I'm wondering how others
> think it should be structured...

Here are draft changes for the minimal thing I think we should do.

I don't really know what to do about the "IO" abbreviation. The other sections
un-abbreviate abbreviations, but I suspect that Input/Output will be less
informative than IO to most...

I still wonder if we instead ought to create a top-level "IO" section instead
of leaving it under "Resource Usage". How many IOs we combine, how
aggressively we flush unflushed data, etc only kinda fits into the resource
usage category.

Greetings,

Andres Freund