Re: [HACKERS] Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c?
On 10/28/15 10:27 AM, Bill Moran wrote: See subject. Aside from them being divvied up by datatype, they seem to be ordered randomly. Since I'm putting together a patch that will add some GUCs, do I just add them to the end of the list? The initial commit grouped them logically, and it went downhill from there. :) Some "per-section" comments in the file would help to remain consistent. -- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c?
On 10/28/2015 01:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 10/28/15 10:27 AM, Bill Moran wrote: >> See subject. Aside from them being divvied up by datatype, they seem >> to be ordered randomly. Since I'm putting together a patch that will >> add some GUCs, do I just add them to the end of the list? > > The initial commit grouped them logically, and it went downhill from > there. :) Yeah, we're overdue for another overhaul of GUC ordering. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c?
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:58:30 -0400 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 10/28/15 10:27 AM, Bill Moran wrote: > > See subject. Aside from them being divvied up by datatype, they seem > > to be ordered randomly. Since I'm putting together a patch that will > > add some GUCs, do I just add them to the end of the list? > > The initial commit grouped them logically, and it went downhill from > there. :) > > But "at the end" is almost never a good answer in these situations, I think. Hrm ... That begs a larger question ... as I'm working to add new config options that don't really belong in an existing category, I guess I should create a new category? I.e. the two config values are target_tuples_per_page and target_compression_ratio ... and I'm not seeing an existing category that they fall into. More description here: https://github.com/williammoran/postgres/blob/master/README Thoughts/opinions? -- Bill Moran -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c?
On 10/28/15 10:27 AM, Bill Moran wrote: > See subject. Aside from them being divvied up by datatype, they seem > to be ordered randomly. Since I'm putting together a patch that will > add some GUCs, do I just add them to the end of the list? The initial commit grouped them logically, and it went downhill from there. :) But "at the end" is almost never a good answer in these situations, I think. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c?
See subject. Aside from them being divvied up by datatype, they seem to be ordered randomly. Since I'm putting together a patch that will add some GUCs, do I just add them to the end of the list? -- Bill Moran -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
