On Jun 12, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Bruce,
>>
>>> I am concerned that each wizard is going to have to duplicate the
>>> same
>>> logic each time, and adjust to release-based changes.
>>
>> I think that's a feature, not a bug. Right now, I'm not at all
>> convinced that
>> my algorithms for setting the various major dials are great (I just
>> think
>> that nobody yet has better). So I think we should *encourage*
>> people to
>> write their own wizards until we find one that works reasonably well.
>
> I am thinking a web-based wizard would make the most sense.
There's a definite need for an interactive GUI wizard (bundle with the
Windows and OS X installers, at least).
And a commandline wizard would certainly be nice, both interactive and
non-interactive. Mostly for including in install scripts on unix
platforms.
And a web-based wizard would be useful too.
And all of them would benefit from being able to both modify an
existing configuration file, and to generate one from scratch.
It looks like it's going to be reasonably easy to abstract away the
interface to the user such that the first two (and likely the third)
can be built from the same codebase, meaning that the smarts about how
to set the various GUC settings (based on RAM available, estimates of
database size and usage) can be maintained in one place.
Cheers, Steve