Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 02:41:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We just had a user complaint that seems to trace to exactly this
>> bogus reporting in pg_ctl [1]. Although I was originally not
>> very pleased with changing our getopt_long to do switch reordering,
>> I'm now wondering if we should back-patch these changes as bug
>> fixes. It's probably not worth the risk, but ...

> I'm not too concerned about the risks of back-patching these commits, but
> if this 19-year-old bug was really first reported today, I'd agree that
> fixing it in the stable branches is probably not worth it.

Agreed, if it actually is 19 years old. I'm wondering a little bit
if there could be some moderately-recent glibc behavior change
involved. I'm not excited enough about it to go trawl their change
log, but we should keep our ears cocked for similar reports.

regards, tom lane