From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Date: | 2015-05-25 18:55:54 |
Message-ID: | 20150525185554.GE3908@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 01:28:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What we need to consider right now is whether to include back branches
> in the existing practice of reindenting between development cycles.
> This is somewhat urgent because we already did HEAD, so we have already
> created a divergence from HEAD to 9.4 which is going to cause us pain
> one way or the other. (It's worth noting for example that Bruce's
> trial run of pgindent on 9.4 hit some of the code involved in the
> fsync-the-whole-data-directory patch, which means that whatever we decide
> to do about that is likely to stumble over pgindent diffs if we don't
> re-indent the back branches. So I'm not talking about potential pain
> in the vague future, I'm talking about this week.)
One issue I discussed is doing a pgindent-only release so users doing a
diff would not have pgindent diffs mixed with fixes. If we are going to
do an fsync-fix-only release soon, adding pgindent diffs to that would
be as minimal a mixing as we could hope for.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-05-25 18:57:10 | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-25 18:40:05 | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |