From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> |
Subject: | Re: Emacs vs pg_indent's weird indentation for function declarations |
Date: | 2019-05-15 21:30:42 |
Message-ID: | 17265.1557955842@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:17 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> A small problem with the "rejiggering" is that it now makes the wrong
>> choice for K&R-style function definitions, causing them to be weirdly
>> indented. For our purposes, that's a non-problem so I'm not excited
>> about trying to make it smart enough to recognize those. We do have
>> a couple of amazingly old and crufty K&R-style functions in src/port/,
>> though, so probably we'd wish to fix those.
> What kid of fork is pg_bsd_indent... do we care about upstreaming
> changes? I guess someone would need to deal with that case eventually
> if so.
We regard the FreeBSD copy as upstream, and I think we're mostly in sync
with that but only mostly. So it would come down to whether the FreeBSD
maintainer is worried about K&R mode and what he wants to do about that.
Piotr, that's still you isn't it?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-15 21:44:01 | Re: Are ctid chaining loops safe without relation size checks? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-15 21:27:28 | Re: ClonedConstraint typedef is dead code? |