On 22/03/15 08:14, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>
> El mar 21, 2015 2:00 AM, "Mark Kirkwood" <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz
> <mailto:mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>> escribió:
> >
> > On 21/03/15 19:28, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >>
> >> what about not removing it but not showing it in postgresql.conf? as a
> >> side note, i wonder why trace_sort is not in postgresql.conf...
> >> other option is to make it a compile setting, that why if you want to
> >> have it you need to compile and postgres' developers do that routinely
> >> anyway
> >>
> >
> > -1
> >
> > Personally I'm against hiding *any* settings. Choosing sensible
> defaults - yes! Hiding them - that reeks of secret squirrel nonsense and
> overpaid Oracle dbas that knew the undocumented settings for various
> capabilities. I think/hope that no open source project will try to
> emulate that meme!
> >
>
> That ship has already sailed.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/runtime-config-developer.html
>
Not really - they are documented in the official doc repo (that was the
point I was making I think), and +1 for adding or improving the
documentation for some of the more dangerous ones!
While I'm against removing or hiding settings, I have no problem with
shipping/generating a postgresql.conf that has *only* the non default
settings therein, as that requires people to look at the docs where (of
course) we have some sensible discussion about how to set the rest of 'em.
I note that Mysql ship a pretty minimal confile files there days (5.5,
5.6) on Ubuntu, and that seems to cause no particular problem.
regards
Mark