Re: Fixes for 8.1 run of pgindent

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Do we really want to run cosmetic cleanups on a stable branch?
>
> > Agreed, it is not a great idea, but if we don't, then 8.1.X and CVS HEAD
> > will not match indenting, and patches generated by 8.1.X users will not
> > apply cleanly to CVS HEAD. And if we don't run it at all, we then will
> > have CVS HEAD with columns > 80 and incorrect typedef indentations.
>
> I agree with Bruce here: better to keep 8.1 and HEAD matching as best we
> can. I've already had problems with back-patching because the comment
> indentation in 8.0 and 8.1 is so completely different --- manually
> redoing a patch because patch can't figure it out is no fun and a likely
> source of errors. Having to do it an extra time for 8.1 vs HEAD would
> increase the pain and risk that much more.
>
> One of the reasons I wanted Bruce to post the proposed diff was so that
> we could eyeball-verify that it's only hitting comments. I think it's
> worth a little more trouble to check the results given that we plan to
> run it against 8.1.

I have updated the ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/indent.diff
file so that it doesn't have those conflicting typedef/variable entries.
The new diff has fewer uglifications in the date/time routines, and
keywords.c is fine now.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073