Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
>> So your plan is that postgresql.conf will be approximately two thousand
>> lines long, before the user has ever touched it at all? (Two hundred
>> or so GUC variables and ten lines of comments for each one)

> Sure, why not? Clarity should always trump brevity. The only people who
> gain from a comment-less file are the ones who are already expert in it.

I don't think that having to guess which parts of a 2000-line file
represent local changes, and which are just defaults, is much of an
improvement in "clarity".

> Besides, the file is already long enough to require use of an editor's
> find function.

This entire discussion is about fixing that ;-)

regards, tom lane