| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent run next week? |
| Date: | 2019-05-17 17:47:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1485.1558115222@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-17 10:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, how do people feel about adopting the function prototype
>> indenting change discussed in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug%40mail.gmail.com
> I think it'd be a huge improvement.
Yeah, that's probably the biggest remaining bug/issue in pgindent.
> Would we want to also apply this to the back branches to avoid spurious
> conflicts?
I dunno, how far back are you thinking? I've occasionally wished we
could reindent all the back branches to match HEAD, but realistically,
people carrying out-of-tree patches would scream.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-05-17 17:49:47 | Re: pgindent run next week? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-17 17:30:28 | Re: Adding a test for speculative insert abort case |