| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c? |
| Date: | 2015-10-28 21:33:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20151028173357.1bdd9d9f72b6dc0b066d8454@potentialtech.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:58:30 -0400
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/28/15 10:27 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
> > See subject. Aside from them being divvied up by datatype, they seem
> > to be ordered randomly. Since I'm putting together a patch that will
> > add some GUCs, do I just add them to the end of the list?
>
> The initial commit grouped them logically, and it went downhill from
> there. :)
>
> But "at the end" is almost never a good answer in these situations, I think.
Hrm ...
That begs a larger question ... as I'm working to add new config options that
don't really belong in an existing category, I guess I should create a new
category? I.e. the two config values are target_tuples_per_page and
target_compression_ratio ... and I'm not seeing an existing category that
they fall into. More description here:
https://github.com/williammoran/postgres/blob/master/README
Thoughts/opinions?
--
Bill Moran
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-28 21:34:30 | Re: WIP: lookbehind constraints for our regexp engine |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-10-28 20:58:30 | Re: Is there any ordering to the values in guc.c? |