Re: Hard to Use WAS: Hard limit on WAL space

On 2013-06-15 08:44 CEST, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 15 June 2013 16:18, Craig Ringer ... wrote:
>> On 06/15/2013 02:08 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>>> On 15 June 2013 14:43, Craig Ringer ... wrote:
>>>> The #1 question I see on Stack Overflow has to be confusion about
>>>> pg_hba.conf, mostly from people who have no idea it exists, don't understand
>>>> how to configure it, etc.
>>> The totally non-obvious name of the file probably has something to do
>>> with that.  It should be called 'auth.conf'.
>> Not convinced; since it only controls one facet of auth - it doesn't
>> define users, passwords, grants, etc ...
>
> When somebody is setting up postgres for the first time, and they list
> the contents of the config directory, you want them to have some idea

as they may not have read up to section 19.1 The pg_hba.conf File inside 
chapter 19 Client Authentication of part III. Server Administration :-?, 
which states (as of 9.2.4):
"""
Client authentication is controlled by a configuration file, which 
traditionally is named pg_hba.conf and is stored in the database 
cluster's data directory. (HBA stands for host-based authentication.) A 
default pg_hba.conf file is installed when the data directory is 
initialized by initdb. It is possible to place the authentication 
configuration file elsewhere, however; see the hba_file configuration 
parameter. ...
"""

;-) thanks to hyperlinks this is quite close to the start, but I was 
surprised to not find it by skimming the text and following the 
hyperlinks but by knowing the filename instead and entering it 
("pg_hba.conf") into the Search Documentation text field on the top 
right corner of http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/index.html.

Maybe we could find a better place of the whatever-then-name inside the 
part of the docs even the "TL;DR" mood people might read? A paragraph or 
two spiced up with some catchy StackOverflow-inspired terms people with 
a need to configure this authentication aspect might have expected could 
also be expected in INSTALL like docs or directly observable on the 
hyperlinked way from part I. Tutorial chapter 1 Getting Started section 
1.1 Installation all down to chapter 15. Installation from Source Code. 
But of course only, if this is "wanted behavior".

If I read the section 1.1 Installation (again 9.2.4) I have the 
impression, that it more transports the message in our case, that "you 
are the site admin, deal with it, read the docs", or don't I read it 
right? (I am a non-native English reader)

> what each of the files is for.  If they see something called
> 'auth.conf', they'll get the right general idea.  An understanding of
> the nuances (like that it doesn't control user accounts) will come
> once they open up the file -- which they may well do, because it is
> called 'auth.conf', and 'auth' is a thing you want to configure.

that may well be, I do not know, how people that prefer reading folder 
and filenames over manuals written for them grok text, as I read the 
docs, promised ;-)

> If they see something called 'pg_hba.conf', they may very reasonably
> assume that it is some internal/advanced stuff that they don't need to
> worry about just yet, because what the heck is a 'pg_hba'?  The 'pg'
> is unnecessary and the 'hba' is an internal jargon term that we've
> ill-advisedly allowed to leak out into the filename.

at around 1995 when I started using Postgres95 it sure took some time to 
find that pg_hba.conf file, but I then perceived it to be very well 
documented, and also felt a bit guilty, as it's name occured in the 
INSTALL file cf. 
ftp://ftp-archives.postgresql.org/pub/source/v7.2/postgresql-7.2.tar.gz 
and the INSTALL file. Therein "burried" inside Step 1 of "If You Are 
Upgrading" ...

> If you really feel that 'auth.conf' is too imprecise, maybe something
> like 'conn-auth.conf' would be more your style.

I think you guys did and still do a fantastic job with PostgreSQL and 
eps. it's documentation, but in this case I doubt, that any renaming of 
config files will really have an impact on usability in the shady area 
of "TL;DR" - at least for the next twenty years or so - as it still 
holds, that from a false start (eg. not reading documentation written) 
anything may follow.

But as usability is a practical concern I (as a user) would be +0 on 
renaming it if people not finding it bearing the old name, but then 
editing it is really wanted behavior.

All the best,
Stefan.