| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent run next week? |
| Date: | 2019-05-17 17:27:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20190517172700.bqb4oytgng4tshvm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-17 10:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We should do a pgindent run fairly soon, so that people with patches
> awaiting the next CF will have plenty of time to rebase them as
> necessary.
+1
> I don't want to do it right this minute, to avoid making trouble for the
> several urgent patches we're trying to get done before Monday's beta1
> wrap. But after the beta is tagged seems like it'd be a good time.
+1
> Also, how do people feel about adopting the function prototype
> indenting change discussed in
I think it'd be a huge improvement. I find it pretty annoying having to
figure out the indentations to avoid unnecessary pgindent changes (after
Thomas' explanation as to why it happens, I usually just add a linebreak
after the return type, indent everything, and remove it).
Would we want to also apply this to the back branches to avoid spurious
conflicts?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-17 17:30:28 | Re: Adding a test for speculative insert abort case |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-05-17 17:23:36 | Re: pgindent run next week? |