Re: Order getopt arguments

Hello Peter,

> I had noticed that most getopt() or getopt_long() calls had their letter 
> lists in pretty crazy orders.  There might have been occasional attempts 
> at grouping, but those then haven't been maintained as new options were 
> added. To restore some sanity to this, I went through and ordered them 
> alphabetically.

I agree that a more or less random historical order does not make much 
sense.

For pgbench, ISTM that sorting per functionality then alphabetical would 
be better than pure alphabetical because it has 2 modes. Such sections 
might be (1) general (2) connection (3) common/shared (4) initialization 
and (5) benchmarking, we some comments on each.

What do you think? If okay, I'll send you a patch for that.

-- 
Fabien.