| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Order getopt arguments |
| Date: | 2022-12-12 14:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | 748da0f4-6379-9a5b-7147-9fea608cd95d@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.12.22 18:04, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I was only talking about the actual argument to getopt(), not the
>>> order of the code stanzas. I'm not sure what we ought to do about the
>>> latter.
>>
>> 100% agreed that the getopt argument should just be alphabetical.
>> But the bulk of Peter's patch is rearranging switch cases to agree
>> with that, and if you want to do that then you have to also think
>> about long options, which are not in the getopt argument. I'm
>> not entirely convinced that reordering the switch cases is worth
>> troubling over.
>
> I'm not particularly sold on that either, but neither am I
> particularly opposed to it.
I have committed it as posted.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-12-12 14:37:06 | Re: Add PL/pgSQL extra check no_data_found |
| Previous Message | Niyas Sait | 2022-12-12 13:38:37 | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |