Thanks to Álvaro for pointing this out. I didn't think of it. On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 2:21 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: > > On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > >> and the GUC grouping in guc_tables.c/h? > > > I don't know what our policy around this is, and maybe the backpatching > > hazard > > isn't too bad here, but it doesn't entirely seem worth the churn. > > I think the entire point of that categorization is to line up with the > docs, so our policy should be to fix this.
I wrote a patch to reorder postgresql.conf.sample. But when I started looking at guc_tables.c, it doesn't seem like those are grouped according to the current docs order. Part of this is because some of the GUCs have different data types. But this appears to be more than that. For example, in master guc_tables.c, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit and vacuum_cost_limit are together (in docs in master they were in different sub-sections). Is guc_tables.c meant to be consistent with the ordering in the docs? - Melanie
