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
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? |