Joshua Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Using that to include a file that's full of comments anyway (which is
>> all that's left in postgresql.conf at this time, I'm sure) just seems.
>> Well. Sub-optimal.
> Yes but part of this idea is valid. The fact is the majority of the
> postgresql.conf parameters don't need to be in there by default. It
> just makes the file an intimidating mess for newbies and I am not
> talking about just n00bs but also people coming from other environments
> such as MSSQL.
Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default
postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)?
I've never thought that the current contents were especially useful
as documentation; the kindest thing you can say about 'em is that they
are duplicative of the SGML documentation. For novices they aren't
even adequately duplicative.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
