On 20.04.22 23:21, David G. Johnston wrote:
I agree with the observation but it initdb is fast enough and non-interactive and so that order isn't particularly appealing.
I'm not a particular fan of the current initdb output and it could use a general revision IMO. If you want to look into that, please do. But for your particular proposed addition, let's put it somewhere it makes sense either in the current scheme or a future scheme when that is done.
