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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
