| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent run next week? |
| Date: | 2019-05-22 19:13:04 |
| Message-ID: | cbba9b77-021d-5f22-9e4d-3c870d5c2604@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-05-21 23:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would we want to also apply this to the back branches to avoid spurious
>> conflicts?
> I think we should hold off on any talk of that until we get some results
> from Mark Dilger (or anyone else) on how much pain it would cause for
> people carrying private patches.
In my experience, changes to function declarations in header files
happen a lot in forks. So applying the pgindent change to backbranches
would cause some trouble.
On the other hand, it seems to me that patches that we backpatch between
PostgreSQL branches should normally not touch function declarations in
header files, since that would be an ABI break. So by not applying the
pgindent change in backbranches we don't lose anything. And so it would
be better to just leave things as they are.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Seltenreich | 2019-05-22 19:15:40 | Excessive memory usage in multi-statement queries w/ partitioning |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-05-22 19:12:39 | Re: Is it safe to ignore the return value of SPI_finish and SPI_execute? |