On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 19:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 10:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's already in the docs, so if they read it and understand it they can > >>>>> add it to the postgresql.conf if they so choose. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with Josh Berkus that vacuum_defer_cleanup_age should be in > >>>> postgresql.conf. We don't stop listing items just because they are > >>>> dangerous, e.g. fsync, or to discourage their use. I believe Greg Smith > >>>> also felt it should be included. > >>> > >>> Or, let's put it another way: I've made my opinion clear in the past > >>> that I think that we ought to ship with a minimal postgresql.conf with > >>> maybe 15 items in it. If we are going to continue to ship with > >>> postgresql.conf "kitchen sick" version, however, it should include > >>> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> As usual, the postgresql.conf is entirely too full. We should ship with > >> the top 15. If this gains any traction, I am sure that Greg Smith, > >> Berkus and I could provide that list with nothing but a care bear > >> discussion. > > > > +1 ... but, why the 'top 15'? why not just those that are uncommented to > > start with, and leave those that are commented out as 'in the docs' ... ? > > +1 to either proposal.
I think top 15 was arbitrary. The point, is that our postgresql.conf is ridiculous. For 99% of installations, only a dozen to a dozen and a half of the options are relevant. > > ...Robert > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers