Re: pgindent run

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgindent run
Date: 2021-06-28 12:52:16
Message-ID: CAApHDvroSMY2Kva-kQqFB+1dCbLTGu5L9eyeSr20dv87eA4wHQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 00:29, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Here's the diff from a pgindent run.

--- a/src/backend/commands/policy.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/policy.c
@@ -587,65 +587,65 @@ RemoveRoleFromObjectPolicy(Oid roleid, Oid
classid, Oid policy_id)
/* If any roles remain, update the policy entry. */
if (num_roles > 0)
{
- /* This is the array for the new tuple */
- role_ids = construct_array(role_oids, num_roles, OIDOID,
- sizeof(Oid), true, TYPALIGN_INT);
+ /* This is the array for the new tuple */
+ role_ids = construct_array(role_oids, num_roles, OIDOID,
+ sizeof(Oid), true, TYPALIGN_INT);

I wasn't too sure about the status of this one. Michael did mention it
in [1], but Tom mentioned that was on purpose to ease backpatching.
I'm not too clear on if Tom intended it should stay unindented until
"rewriting that whole function in a little bit".

David

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YM0puvBnbBIZxJt2@paquier.xyz

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Boris Kolpackov 2021-06-28 12:56:43 Re: Pipeline mode and PQpipelineSync()
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-06-28 12:51:50 Re: What is "wraparound failure", really?