Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200306101028.39195.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jan, > No, not documenting it IS a good move. I couldn't disagree more. Undocumented options? Who are we, Microsoft? > If there's a button people will > press it, if there's a switch people will turn it on and if there's a > slot people will stick in whatever they have ... believe it or not, I > have found a Xmas cookie in the floppy drive of a consultant's notebook <snip> These kinds of people don't read the documentation in the first place, so we're in no danger from them. I can definitely see an argument that the "developer" switches should be documented on a different page of the docs from "Run-Time Configuration". But the idea of having GUCs that aren't documented at all, anywhere, is a very anti-Open Source idea. -- -Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: