Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf
Date
Msg-id CABUevEypKsehnca5_ZY3oaRKVGnFAGUkZJZ059zmTnZae37N2g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view


On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,

While working on
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEzwMa9y+Bp4Fi4fE4hmPfZMjOZOmuLVtbHhPWtcujrmLg@mail.gmail.com
I once more taken aback by the total lack of consistency between the
three files in $subject. Some of the inconsistency of guc.c vs. the rest
comes from having separate lists for different datatypes - hard to avoid
- but even disregarding that, there seems to be little to no
consistency.

How about we try to order them the same? That's obviously not a 9.6
topic at this point, but it'd probably be good to that early in 9.7.

Agreed, at least between the documentation and postgresql.conf.sample. That's also the order that users are likely to look at.

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) 


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpoint_flush_after documentation inconsistency
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?