Re: Synchronize with imath upstream

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:15:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On February 6, 2019 5:17:50 AM GMT+05:30, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I'm -1 for this myself. I think there are a few places that could
> >> benefit from it, but my fear is that many *more* places would get
> >> worse.
>
> > Because of imported code like ryu and imath? And because it can make code considerably better when used judiciously.
>
> I don't object to keeping imported code in a form that matches upstream
> as best we can. (Should we also exclude such files from pgindent'ing?)

I think it depends on how much time one spends merging upstream changes versus
making PostgreSQL-specific edits. For IMath, both amounts are too small to
get excited about. Does pgindent materially complicate src/timezone merges?

> But changing conventions for our own code is an entirely different matter.
> In this case, I think that having some places use it while the bulk of
> the code doesn't is just a bad idea from a stylistic-consistency
> standpoint. It's pretty much the same reason why we still aren't allowing
> // comments --- there's no toolchain-based reason not to, but a mishmash of
> comment styles would be ugly and hard to read.

(This debate never belonged in this thread, but it's too late now.) I find
code easiest to follow when the declaration appears as late as possible. I
would welcome mixed declarations and code, and I would not mourn the loss of
consistency. In terms of consistency damage, this is similar to adding
psprintf() without exterminating palloc()+snprintf(). I'm glad we introduce
ways to write new, cleaner code despite the inconsistency with older code.