Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wMvL1-000Rhi-1L for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2026 22:12:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wMvL0-006Fmf-0a for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2026 22:12:26 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wMvKz-006FmX-2v for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2026 22:12:26 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wMvKw-00000000GpJ-46Dv for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2026 22:12:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 64CMCLo1100080; Tue, 12 May 2026 18:12:21 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Nathan Bossart cc: Chao Li , Rahila Syed , Robert Haas , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: pgindent versus struct members and typedefs In-reply-to: References: <509793.1764715875@sss.pgh.pa.us> <729177.1778039019@sss.pgh.pa.us> <771696.1778079755@sss.pgh.pa.us> <773076.1778080637@sss.pgh.pa.us> <94060.1778621630@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart message dated "Tue, 12 May 2026 17:09:00 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <100078.1778623941.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 18:12:21 -0400 Message-ID: <100079.1778623941@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Nathan Bossart writes: > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 05:33:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we're about ready to roll on doing the pgindent run. >> Do you want to push your patch tomorrow AM, and then I'll get >> on with the rest? > Sounds good. We won't be back-patching any of this, right? Right, just HEAD. regards, tom lane