Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: 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 19:17:24
Message-ID: a268e9f0-0493-7f51-3042-a0f780712783@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-05-19 19:28:22 Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #14657: Server process segmentation fault in v10, May 10th dev snapshot
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-05-19 19:12:32 Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation