On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> guc.c might be better to just stick to alphabetical per group. (Which we
> also don't do today, of course, but it could be a better way to do it there)

For myself, I would rather have guc.c in the order that it's in.
Related options tend to be next to each other, and being able to look
up and down to see that they are all consistent has value for me.  If
we put them in alphabetical order, that's likely to be less true.  And
realistically, anybody who is looking for a particular setting is just
going to ask their editor to find it for them, so there's not a lot of
value in alpha order that I can see.

However, if I lose this argument, I will not cry into my beer.  Just
throwing out my $0.02.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to