On 27 January 2018 at 00:03, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com> wrote:
> Looking at the patch, at first I thought the order was sorted and you
> swapped STORAGE and STATISTICS by accident. But then, it seems the order
> is semi-random. Should that list be sorted or is it already sorted by some
> criteria that I don't see?
>
> - <literal>INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING IDENTITY INCLUDING
> CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING INDEXES INCLUDING STORAGE INCLUDING
> COMMENTS</literal>.
> + <literal>INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING IDENTITY INCLUDING
> CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING INDEXES INCLUDING STORAGE INCLUDING STATISTICS
> INCLUDING COMMENTS</literal>.
It looks like they were in order of how they're defined in enum
TableLikeOption up until [1], then I'm not so sure what the new order
is based on after that.
I'd offer to put it back to the order of the enum, but I want to
minimise the invasiveness of the patch. I'm not sure yet if it should
be classed as a bug fix or a new feature.
On looking at this I realised I missed changing the syntax synopsis.
The attached adds this.
[1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
