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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZScfm_veL3kiwkzZkwyEkLp4Sj9Ht5mFezFA_DjNZA7_A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

+1

The GUC autovacuum_work_mem is beside other autovacuum GUCs, not other
RESOURCES_MEM GUCs. track_activity_query_size is beside GUCs that
relate to logging, and yet is also a RESOURCES_MEM GUC. So, neither of
these GUCs would be better placed beside the things that we think of
as RESOURCES_MEM GUCs, such as work_mem. In short, the existing
ordering isn't really so arbitrary.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN VERBOSE with parallel Aggregate
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types