Re: pgindent weirdness

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > On 04/20/2011 04:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> So the list of possible additions Andrew supplied are cases where we
> >> never reference those typedefs --- seems like a cleanup opportunity.
>
> > I think the best cleanup idea is Aidan's, namely is we have declared
> > "typdef struct foo { ... } foo;" we should use "foo" in the code
> > instead of "struct foo". Then the typedef will be referenced, and the
> > code will be cleaner, and we won't run into the pgindent "struct" bug
> > either, so it's a win/win/win.
>
> We want to do that in any case. I think that Bruce was suggesting going
> further and actively removing unreferenced struct tags from the
> declaration sites. I'm less enthused about that. It would save nothing
> except some probably-unmeasurable amount of compile time, and it'd
> result in a lot of diffs that might come back to bite future
> back-patching efforts.

No, I wasn't thinking that far; just finding the cases where we don't
reference a typedef and instead use 'struct structname'. I think Andrew
has supplied that list, almost.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +