Hi, On 01/27/2018 10:09 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 27 January 2018 at 00:03, Tels <nospam-pg-ab...@bloodgate.com> wrote: >> Looking at the patch, at first I thought the order was sorted and you >> swapped STORAGE and STATISTICS by accident. But then, it seems the order >> is semi-random. Should that list be sorted or is it already sorted by some >> criteria that I don't see? >> >> - <literal>INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING IDENTITY INCLUDING >> CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING INDEXES INCLUDING STORAGE INCLUDING >> COMMENTS</literal>. >> + <literal>INCLUDING DEFAULTS INCLUDING IDENTITY INCLUDING >> CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING INDEXES INCLUDING STORAGE INCLUDING STATISTICS >> INCLUDING COMMENTS</literal>. > > It looks like they were in order of how they're defined in enum > TableLikeOption up until [1], then I'm not so sure what the new order > is based on after that. > > I'd offer to put it back to the order of the enum, but I want to > minimise the invasiveness of the patch. I'm not sure yet if it should > be classed as a bug fix or a new feature. > > On looking at this I realised I missed changing the syntax synopsis. > The attached adds this. >
Thanks for working on a patch. This should have been in the statistics patch, no doubt about that. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
