On 7/9/25 16:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 01:52:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I considered putting the sortsupport functions first, since they have a lower support function
>>> number, but I thought defining them in the same order as we've been doing was a tiny bit safer.
>>> Maybe that is superstitious.
>>
>> Yeah, I'd be inclined to swap them. I dislike code that has no
>> ordering principle other than feature development order.
>
> Ordering them by number in the unified script makes more sense here.
Here is a patch with the new order.
Yours,
--
Paul ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com