| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
| Date: | 2011-04-18 22:20:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4DACB92E.8030207@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/18/2011 01:46 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/17/2011 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> BTW, another thing that should be in the try-try-again category is
>> seeing how close we could get to pgindent's results with GNU indent.
>> It seems clear to me that a process based on GNU indent would be a
>> lot easier for a lot of people. We tried that once before, and couldn't
>> get close enough to want to consider switching, but maybe it just needs
>> a more determined effort and/or more recent versions of GNU indent.
>> (ISTR that we hit some things that seemed to be outright bugs in GNU
>> indent, but this was quite a few years ago.)
>
> That seems like a definite win possibility there.
>
>
If you're aware of any changes in GNU indent that would overcome the
previous issues, then by all means spend the time on it. If not, it
seems a bit like the definition of insanity ("repeating an experiment
with the expectation of a different result").
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-18 22:28:36 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-18 22:11:15 | Re: Evaluation of secondary sort key. |