Quantity vs Quality of Publication during PhD My question is similar to this one but it applies to PhD who wants to find a postdoc position after graduation.

I am a PhD student who publishes a new paper as soon as there is an improvement in my research. Each year, I manage to publish 2 or 3 papers into high quality conferences but not the top one in my field.

Recently, a senior researcher suggests me to combine few improvements into one paper so that it will have more improvements in comparison to the previous one. It will result in less papers per year but increase the difference in term of research contribution between them. She argues that, in order to get into a good postdoc programme, the quality of paper is more important than the quantity and I should aim for top conference in the field with very high quality paper instead of good-but-not-great conference.

I wonder if my colleague's suggestion is correct and I should reduce the number of published papers per year in order to increase the difference in research contribution between them.

My field is computer science but answers from other fields are also welcome.
I don't know what publication rates are typical in computer science, but in mathematics it is true that quality is more important than quantity, when it comes to getting postdocs and competitive research positions. 

This does not mean quantity is irrelevant. But postdocs are partially given based on your promise as a researcher. To that end, one truly excellent paper may be enough to land a job (along with good references), because it suggests you have the potential to produce more excellent papers. On the other hand, 10 truly mediocre papers is not likely to be as impressive, because it only shows you can publish lots of mediocre papers.