On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 3:04 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > While I'm certain that nobody will agree with me on every little > > detail, I have to imagine that most would find my preferred ordering > > quite understandable and unsurprising, at a high level -- this is not > > a hopelessly idiosyncratic ranking, that could just as easily have > > been generated by a PRNG. People may not easily agree that "apples are > > more important than oranges, or vice-versa", but what does it matter? > > I've really only put each option into buckets of items with *roughly* > > the same importance. All of the details beyond that don't matter to > > me, at all. > > I agree with you that roughly bucketing items is a good approach. > Within each bucket we can then sort alphabetically.
I think of these buckets as working at a logarithmic scale. The FULL, FREEZE, VERBOSE, and ANALYZE options are multiple orders of magnitude more important than most of the other options, and maybe one order of magnitude more important than the PARALLEL, TRUNCATE, and INDEX_CLEANUP options. With differences that big, you have a structure that generalizes across all users quite well. This doesn't seem particularly subjective. -- Peter Geoghegan
