Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I'm not sure there's a
>>> good solution to this problem short of making pgindent easy enough
>>> that we can make it a requirement for patch submission, and I'm not
>>> sure that's practical.
>>> But in any case, I think running pgindent immediately after the last
>>> CommitFest rather than after a longish delay would be a good idea.
>> Frankly, fixing up patch bitrot caused by pgindent is not terribly difficult
>> in my experience - bitrot caused by code drift is a much harder problem (and
>> yes, git fans, I know git can help with that).
> Where it really bit me as when it reindented the DATA() statements
> that were touched by ALTER TABLE ... SET STATISTICS DISTINCT. It's
> not so hard to compare code, but comparing DATA() lines is the pits.
Oh? Maybe that's a problem we need to address more directly. I just
looked at what it did to the DATA lines - it seems to have changed 501
of them, and all the changes seem to be to do with tabbing.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Mielke||Date: 2009-08-11 18:48:17|
|Subject: Re: "Hot standby"?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-08-11 18:30:27|
|Subject: Re: machine-readable explain output v4 |
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: User Rbt||Date: 2009-08-11 18:50:02|
|Subject: autodoc - autodoc: Add the manpage to the release tarball.|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-08-11 17:42:08|
|Subject: Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)|