Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>
Subject: Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation
Date: 2017-05-19 20:01:36
Message-ID: 22873.1495224096@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 5/19/17 11:22, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I certainly would rather that our version matched something that's under
>> active maintenance someplace. But it seems like there are two good
>> arguments for having a copy in our tree:

> Is pgindent going to be indented by pgindent?

If we were going to keep it in our tree, I'd plan to add an exclusion
rule to keep pgindent from touching it, as we already have for assorted
other files that are copied from external projects. However, it seems
like "keep it in a separate repo" is winning, so it's moot.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-05-19 20:23:58 Re: Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description on connect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-05-19 19:58:53 Re: [Bug fix]If recovery.conf has target_session_attrs=read-write, the standby fails to start.