Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor
NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)
From:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc:
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:
Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor
NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)
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.
cheers
andrew
