| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc? |
| Date: | 2023-04-18 23:17:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvphkraLb+s2g=-R=VswPR+ZL7dc9tj7zv=nH7dvvXcE1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 18:53, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Take the VACUUM command. Right now FULL, FREEZE, and VERBOSE all come
> first. Those options are approximately the most important options --
> especially VERBOSE. But your patch places VERBOSE dead last.
hmm, how can we verify that the options are kept in order of
importance? What guidance can we provide to developers adding options
about where they should slot in the new option to the docs?
"Importance order" just seems horribly subjective to me. I'd be
interested to know if you could tell me if SKIP_LOCKED has more
importance than INDEX_CLEANUP, for example. If you can, it would seem
like trying to say apples are more important than oranges, or
vice-versa.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-04-18 23:30:06 | Re: Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-04-18 21:36:40 | Enhanced rmgr desc routines test !has_image, not has_data |