| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Order getopt arguments |
| Date: | 2022-12-05 08:42:41 |
| Message-ID: | 8e3a2d80-2d7f-517f-bb16-e1c46e687478@mines-paristech.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Peter,
> I had noticed that most getopt() or getopt_long() calls had their letter
> lists in pretty crazy orders. There might have been occasional attempts
> at grouping, but those then haven't been maintained as new options were
> added. To restore some sanity to this, I went through and ordered them
> alphabetically.
I agree that a more or less random historical order does not make much
sense.
For pgbench, ISTM that sorting per functionality then alphabetical would
be better than pure alphabetical because it has 2 modes. Such sections
might be (1) general (2) connection (3) common/shared (4) initialization
and (5) benchmarking, we some comments on each.
What do you think? If okay, I'll send you a patch for that.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peifeng Qiu | 2022-12-05 08:51:49 | Re: Optimize common expressions in projection evaluation |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-12-05 08:29:53 | Order getopt arguments |