From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
cc: Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
In-reply-to: 
 <CAH2-Wzn6=JeS=UzFSS0N1ytT35UUOqrTBg=JnRLbj1yJm0By_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABUevExkB=+FX5Ht2sU6Tmk1fF0h8LqugW5camQ-r00ftPZoSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200814202651.GA31108@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CABUevEwGPPaUtObrDywO+vhpFDTJXO+-aeWJd7D46uXTE2sQpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQQs+hz4uQSmD_8oRLr74GtxpE0iXuYE85+RHAzvkF_yvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8whOD51K2ZlcaFz@momjian.us>
 <CAH2-Wzn_L_kLCw_OLhpBztKwn_aaM0QLmMmubGK4KSxQyJPkbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1097305.1674334785@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAH2-WzkHHcPRMj3G1b_dUfY0aR4W4OAHQ9_Z6sDGvL8Ew+aRrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1105401.1674339635@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20230121224700.36hebimyiyora2jv@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <CAGECzQQPKK3VBMPRrJKnW03vJXBcAbYM16v3UDP-thpyUrx6XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wzn6=JeS=UzFSS0N1ytT35UUOqrTBg=JnRLbj1yJm0By_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
	message dated "Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:19:15 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1219046.1674405317.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 11:35:17 -0500
Message-ID: <1219047.1674405317@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1219047.1674405317%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:39 PM Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
>> ...  For clang-format you should use
>> at least clang-format 15, otherwise it has some bugs in the alignment
>> logic.

> Really? I have been using 14, which is quite recent. Did you just
> figure this out recently? If this is true, then it's certainly
> discouraging.

Indeed.  What that points to is a future where different contributors
get different results depending on what clang version they have
installed --- and it's not going to be practical to insist that
everybody have the same version, because AFAICT clang-format is tied
to clang itself.  So that sounds a bit unappetizing.

One of the few advantages of the current tool situation is that at any
time there's just one agreed-on version of pgindent and pgperltidy.
I've not heard push-back about our policy that you should use
perltidy version 20170521, because that's not especially connected
to any other part of one's system.  Maybe the same would hold for
uncrustify, but it's never going to work for pieces of the clang
ecosystem.

			regards, tom lane