Re: Fast default stuff versus pg_upgrade

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> In terms of pgindent, I'm surprised about these lines:
> + missingval = OidFunctionCall3(
> + F_ARRAY_IN,

> Why did you put a newline there? In ancient times there was a reason
> for that in some cases, because pgindent would move the argument to the
> left of the open parens, but it doesn't do that anymore and IMO it's
> just ugly. We have quite a few leftovers from this ancient practice,
> I've been thinking about removing these ...

I think some people feel this is good style, but I agree with you
about not liking it. A related practice I could do without is eating
an extra line for an argument-closing paren, as in this example in
tsquery_op.c:

Datum
tsq_mcontained(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
PG_RETURN_DATUM(
DirectFunctionCall2(
tsq_mcontains,
PG_GETARG_DATUM(1),
PG_GETARG_DATUM(0)
)
);
}

Aside from the waste of vertical space, it's never very clear to me
(nor, evidently, to pgindent) how such a paren ought to be indented.
So to my eye this could be four lines shorter and look better.

regards, tom lane