On 13.10.25 13:39, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I agree that keeping the guc_parameters.dat file alphabetically sorted
> by default would keep the maintenance cost lowest, because we won't have
> to make any subjective decisions for new entries. However, automatically
> generating the .sample file sounds impractical, considering the
> free-form comments that we currently have there.
Yes, I'm not sure if it's practical in the fullest extent. But there
were at various points discussions about alternative layouts and
contents for postgresql.conf.sample, with a lot of opinions. With this
new framework, I think it might be interesting to experiment. Which is
why I mentioned it.
> I think instead of that mess, maybe we can simply keep the sample file
> as-is, cross-check that a line for each non-hidden GUC variable exists,
> and perhaps that the commented-out default value matches the data file.
Those would certainly be reasonable near-term steps.
