| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought: should we run pgindent now? |
| Date: | 2010-02-18 10:21:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4B7D1491.5060609@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/2/18 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
>> It's worth noting that any patches that bit-rot because of pgindent run
>> can be fixed with the following procedure:
>>
>> 1. check out the source tree just before pgindent.
>> 2. Apply patch
>> 3. Run pgindent
>> 4. Diff against source tree just after pgindent.
>
> Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
> Which they generally don't due to different sets of typedefs and
> stuff? It's a solvable problem of course, but not quite as simple as
> you make it sound :-)
True. So everyone will have to send their patches to Bruce for bit-rot
fixing ;-)
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-02-18 10:30:32 | Re: PostgreSQL::PLPerl::Call - Simple interface for calling SQL functions from PostgreSQL PL/Perl |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-02-18 10:14:19 | Re: A thought: should we run pgindent now? |