| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent run next week? |
| Date: | 2019-05-17 17:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20190517174947.mc7sdtq2m5hoobdu@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:47:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2019-05-17 10:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, how do people feel about adopting the function prototype
> >> indenting change discussed in
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug%40mail.gmail.com
>
> > I think it'd be a huge improvement.
>
> Yeah, that's probably the biggest remaining bug/issue in pgindent.
>
> > Would we want to also apply this to the back branches to avoid spurious
> > conflicts?
>
> I dunno, how far back are you thinking? I've occasionally wished we
> could reindent all the back branches to match HEAD, but realistically,
> people carrying out-of-tree patches would scream.
My regular backpatch pain is SGML files. :-(
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-05-17 18:00:52 | Is it safe to ignore the return value of SPI_finish and SPI_execute? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-17 17:47:02 | Re: pgindent run next week? |