Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner

On 02.02.23 07:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
>> Regarding the concern about a pre-receive hook blocking an emergency push, the
>> hook could approve every push where a string like "pgindent: no" appears in a
>> commit message within the push. You'd still want to make the tree clean
>> sometime the same week or so. It's cheap to provide a break-glass like that.
>
> I think the real question here is whether we can get all (or at least
> a solid majority of) committers to accept such draconian constraints.
> I'd buy into it, and evidently so would you, but I can't help noting
> that less than a quarter of active committers have bothered to
> comment on this thread. I suspect the other three-quarters would
> be quite annoyed if we tried to institute such requirements. That's
> not manpower we can afford to drive away.

I have some concerns about this.

First, as a matter of principle, it would introduce another level of
gatekeeping power. Right now, the committers are as a group in charge
of what gets into the tree. Adding commit hooks that are installed
somewhere(?) by someone(?) and can only be seen by some(?) would upset
that. If we were using something like github or gitlab (not suggesting
that, but for illustration), then you could put this kind of thing under
.github/ or similar and then it would be under the same control as the
source code itself.

Also, pgindent takes tens of seconds to run, so hooking that into the
git push process would slow this down quite a bit. And maybe we want to
add pgperltidy and so on, where would this lead? If somehow your local
indenting doesn't give you the "correct" result for some reason, you
might sit there for minutes and minutes trying to fix and push and fix
and push.

Then, consider the typedefs issue. If you add a typedef but don't add
it to the typedefs list but otherwise pgindent your code perfectly, the
push would be accepted. If then later someone updates the typedefs
list, perhaps from the build farm, it would then reject the indentation
of your previously committed code, thus making it their problem.

I think a better way to address these issues would be making this into a
test suite, so that you can run some command that checks "is everything
indented correctly". Then you can run this locally, on the build farm,
in the cfbot etc. in a uniform way and apply the existing
blaming/encouragement processes like for any other test failure.