From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
Date: | 2023-01-23 17:31:36 |
Message-ID: | 20230123173136.knn77pbuakhvjfgk@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-23 10:09:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. I'd originally thought vaguely that we could teach pgindent
> how to build pg_bsd_indent automatically. But with a little
> more consideration, I doubt that would work transparently.
> It's common (at least for me) to run pgindent in a distclean'd
> tree, where configure results wouldn't be available. It's even
> worse if you habitually use VPATH builds, so that those files
> *never* exist in your source tree. So now I think that we should
> stick to the convention that it's on the user to install
> pg_bsd_indent somewhere in their PATH; all we'll be doing with
> this change is eliminating the step of fetching pg_bsd_indent's
> source files from somewhere else.
I think it'd be better to build pg_bsd_indent automatically as you planned
earlier - most others don't run pgindent from a distcleaned source tree. And
it shouldn't be hard to teach pgindent to run from a vpath build directory.
I'd like to get to the point where we can have simple build target for
a) re-indenting the whole tree
b) re-indenting the files touched in changes compared to master
If we add that to the list of things to do before sending a patch upstream,
we're a heck of a lot more likely to get decently formatted patches compared
to today.
As long as we need typedefs.list, I think it'd be good for such a target to
add new typedefs found in the local build to typedefs.list (but *not* remove
old ones, due to platform dependent code). But that's a separate enough
topic...
> 2. Given #1, it'll be prudent to continue having pgindent
> double-check that pg_bsd_indent reports a specific version
> number.
+1
> 3. If we do nothing special, the first mass reindentation is
> going to reformat the pg_bsd_indent sources per PG style,
> which is ... er ... not the way they look now. Do we want
> to accept that outcome, or take steps to prevent pgindent
> from processing pg_bsd_indent? I have a feeling that manual
> cleanup would be necessary if we let such reindentation
> happen, but I haven't experimented.
I think we should exempt it, initially at least. If somebody decides to invest
a substantial amount of time in pgindent, let's change it, but I'm somewhat
doubtful that'll happen anytime soon.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gkokolatos | 2023-01-23 17:31:55 | Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-01-23 17:25:45 | Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |