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. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
