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.
