| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent run next week? |
| Date: | 2019-05-17 18:11:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20190517181130.h3nycw5h3pi2fl3c@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-17 13:47:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > 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.
I somehow thought we'd backpatched pgindent changes before, around when
moving to the newer version of indent. But I think we might just have
discussed that, and then didn't go for it...
Not sure if a three-way merge wouldn't take care of many, but not all,
the out-of-tree patch concerns.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-05-17 18:26:29 | Create TOAST table only if AM needs |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-05-17 18:00:52 | Is it safe to ignore the return value of SPI_finish and SPI_execute? |