| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) |
| Date: | 2009-08-11 15:56:18 |
| Message-ID: | 10143.1250006178@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Only if they aren't applied by then. One reason that we normally only
>> run pgindent at the end of the devel cycle is that that's when
>> (presumably) the smallest amount of patches remain outstanding.
> OK, I get it. Thanks for bearing with me. The theory that the
> smallest amount of patches remain outstanding at that point is
> probably only true if the pgindent run is done relatively soon after
> the last CommitFest. In the 8.4 cycle, the pgindent run was done
> something like 7 months after the start of the last CommitFest, by
> which time a fair number of patches had accumulated.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Maybe we should institute a new policy that
pgindent should happen immediately after close of the last commitfest
in a cycle, instead of delaying until almost release time.
A more aggressive approach would be to run pgindent immediately after
the close of *each* commitfest, but that would tend to break patches
that had gotten punted to the next fest.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-11 16:43:09 | Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-08-11 12:02:58 | pgsql: Remove tab in SGML. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-08-11 15:58:00 | Re: "Hot standby"? |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-08-11 15:30:01 | Re: Hot standby and synchronous replication status |