| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
| Date: | 2023-02-02 06:40:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1477791.1675320029@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> Regarding the concern about a pre-receive hook blocking an emergency push, the
> hook could approve every push where a string like "pgindent: no" appears in a
> commit message within the push. You'd still want to make the tree clean
> sometime the same week or so. It's cheap to provide a break-glass like that.
I think the real question here is whether we can get all (or at least
a solid majority of) committers to accept such draconian constraints.
I'd buy into it, and evidently so would you, but I can't help noting
that less than a quarter of active committers have bothered to
comment on this thread. I suspect the other three-quarters would
be quite annoyed if we tried to institute such requirements. That's
not manpower we can afford to drive away.
Maybe this should get taken up at the this-time-for-sure developer
meeting at PGCon?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2023-02-02 07:00:31 | Re: RLS makes COPY TO process child tables |
| Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2023-02-02 06:35:38 | RE: Deadlock between logrep apply worker and tablesync worker |