pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 14:20:02 -0500
Message-ID: <1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQQZCnmybVcrf9u=eRq=-0SbE+g4CtVu3ZT4B5axBE7JqQ@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>
	<20230121224312.qmwpagrebidr6hi7@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<CAH2-Wzm0niYBPcN6eX3PzHABfj0dE3fwifo5bdturvMp=9FGqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20230122094957.x542ojaqgi4lalq4@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<CAGECzQRYjHdNQ-Bq2yrBb-8s3Pjx7pfvYPDdNv9tcvDcscDhbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGECzQQZCnmybVcrf9u=eRq=-0SbE+g4CtVu3ZT4B5axBE7JqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl> writes:
> When reading the emails in this discussion from 2 years ago
> it seems like the respondents wouldn't mind updating the
> typedefs.list manually. And proposed approach number 3
> seemed to have support overall, i.e. fail a push to master
> when pgindent was not run on the new commit. Would
> it make sense to simply try that approach and see if
> there's any big issues with it?

I will absolutely not accept putting in something that fails pushes
on this basis.  There are too many cases where pgindent purity is
not an overriding issue.  I mentioned a counterexample just upthread:
even if you are as anal as you could be about indentation, you might
prefer to separate a logic-changing patch from the ensuing mechanical
reindentation.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (308+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, postgres@jeltef.nl, andres@anarazel.de, pg@bowt.ie, bruce@momjian.us, magnus@hagander.net, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, sfrost@snowman.net, noah@leadboat.com, sbjesse@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner
  In-Reply-To: <1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox