Maybe you can develop a graphic interface just like Fedora Core setup interface which can choose packages installing,
thenthe user can choose config file and then have a little change in parameters.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>; "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>; "John DeSoi" <desoi@pgedit.com>;
"PgsqlHackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Google SoC--Idea Request
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 4/25/06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> Personally I would much rather see a tuning advisor tool in more general
>>> use than just provide small/medium/large config setting files.
>
>> True dat.
>
> One thing that has to be figured out before we can go far with this
> is the whole question of how much smarts initdb really ought to have.
> Since a lot of packagers think that initdb should be run
> non-interactively behind the scenes, the obvious solution of "give
> initdb a --small/--medium/--large parameter" does not work all that
> nicely. But on the other hand we can't just tell people to drop in
> replacement config files when the one in place contains initdb-created
> specifics, such as locale settings.
>
> Now that there's a provision for "include" directives in
> postgresql.conf, one way to address this would be to split the
> config info into multiple physical files, some containing purely
> performance-related settings while others consider functionality.
> But that seems more like a wart than a solution to me. I feel that
> we've pushed performance-tuning logic into initdb that probably ought
> not be there, and we ought to factor it out again.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>