On 05.12.22 18:04, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I was only talking about the actual argument to getopt(), not the
>>> order of the code stanzas. I'm not sure what we ought to do about the
>>> latter.
>>
>> 100% agreed that the getopt argument should just be alphabetical.
>> But the bulk of Peter's patch is rearranging switch cases to agree
>> with that, and if you want to do that then you have to also think
>> about long options, which are not in the getopt argument. I'm
>> not entirely convinced that reordering the switch cases is worth
>> troubling over.
>
> I'm not particularly sold on that either, but neither am I
> particularly opposed to it.
I have committed it as posted.
