On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:42 AM Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > I had noticed that most getopt() or getopt_long() calls had their letter > > lists in pretty crazy orders. There might have been occasional attempts > > at grouping, but those then haven't been maintained as new options were > > added. To restore some sanity to this, I went through and ordered them > > alphabetically. > > I agree that a more or less random historical order does not make much > sense. > > For pgbench, ISTM that sorting per functionality then alphabetical would > be better than pure alphabetical because it has 2 modes. Such sections > might be (1) general (2) connection (3) common/shared (4) initialization > and (5) benchmarking, we some comments on each.
I don't see the value in this. Grouping related options often makes sense, but it seems more confusing than helpful in the case of a getopt string. +1 for Peter's proposal to just alphabetize. That's easy to maintain, at least in theory. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
