| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ordering in guc.c vs. config.sgml vs. postgresql.sample.conf |
| Date: | 2016-04-25 17:22:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZScfm_veL3kiwkzZkwyEkLp4Sj9Ht5mFezFA_DjNZA7_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-04-25 17:40:22 | Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-25 17:03:20 | Re: EXPLAIN VERBOSE with parallel Aggregate |