"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> ... But I agree with Satoshi; if there are
> people who will benefit from this option (which doesn't hurt those who
> choose not to use it), why not put it in?
Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Every option we support
costs us in initial implementation time, documentation effort, and
ongoing maintenance. Plus it confuses users who don't know what to do
with it. (Note Josh's nearby lobbying to remove some GUC parameters.
While I opposed him on that particular item, I sympathize with his
point in general.)
Oracle's approach of "offer every knob you can think of" is not one
that I care to emulate. We have to strike a balance between flexibility
and not having a database that's too complex to administer for anyone
except an expert.
regards, tom lane