Getting to beta1
in [PgSql]
|
From: Greg Smith on 18 Mar 2010 15:20 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > As usual, the postgresql.conf is entirely too full. We should ship with > the top 15. Maybe, but what we should do is ship, and then talk about this again when it's appropriate--earlier in the release cycle. Let me try and cut this one off before it generates a bunch of traffic by summarizing where this is stuck at. We started this release with a good plan for pulling off a major postgresql.conf trimming effort that I still like a lot ( http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2009_Developer_Meeting#Auto-Tuning ) The first step was switching over to a directory-based structure that allowed being all things to all people just by selecting which of the files provided you put into there. We really need the things initdb touches to go into a separate file, rather than the bloated sample, in a way that it's easy to manage; if you just drop files into a directory and the server reads them all that's the easiest route. Extending to include the top 15 or whatever other subset people want is easy after that. Now, that didn't go anywhere in this release due to development focus constraints, but I'm willing to take "has what we can advertise as built-in replication" as a disappointing but acceptable substitute in lieu of that. (rolls eyes) I think it will fit nicely into the "9.1 adds the polish" theme already gathering around the replication features being postponed to the next release. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg(a)2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Marc G. Fournier" on 18 Mar 2010 16:28 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' ... ? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy(a)hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy(a)hub.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prev: [HACKERS] Getting to beta1 Next: [HACKERS] how to use advanced gist options |