Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/monitoring-stats.html, table 27-1.
> Can somebody find or explain the order of the views in there? It's not
> actually alphabetical, but it's also not logical. In particular, what
> is pg_stat_replication doing second to last?
> I would suggest we move pg_stat_replication up to directly under
> pg_stat_activity, and move pg_stat_database_conflicts up to directly
> under pg_stat_database. I think the rest makes reasonable sense.
> Any objections to this? Can anybody spot a reason for why they are
> where they are other than that it was just appended to the end of the
> table without realizing the order that I'm missing now and am about to
> break?
I agree that the last two items seem to be suffering from blindly-add-
it-to-the-end syndrome, which is a disease that runs rampant around here.
However, should we consider the possibility of changing the table to
straight alphabetical ordering? I'm not as much in love with that
approach as some folks, but it does have the merit that it's always clear
where you ought to put a new item. This would result in grouping the
"all", "sys", and "user" views separately, rather than grouping those
variants of a view together ... but on reflection I'm not sure that
that'd be totally horrible.
regards, tom lane