Re: Order getopt arguments
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-12-05T17:04:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Order getopt arguments
- df8b8968d409 16.0 landed