Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9627.1054575403@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal for Re-ordering CONF (was: Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Agreed, postgresql.conf and the documentation should match. Guc.c needs > to be in variable _type_ order, so I don't know what can be done > there. We could make each table in guc.c follow the logical ordering Josh suggests for its subset of the variables. But on the other hand, it'd be just as defensible to put each table in alphabetical order. I'd vote for doing one or the other rather than leaving the kinda-random order that's there now. Josh's proposal looks pretty good to me in general, though some of the details seem a little odd. "max_files_per_process" doesn't belong under lock management (perhaps better to stick it under Memory Usage, possibly renaming that category to Resource Consumption) and the Query Tuning/Other section seems kinda random. But "miscellaneous" variables are always a bear to classify. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: