From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
        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: 
 <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>
Comments: In-reply-to Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl>
	message dated "Sun, 22 Jan 2023 19:14:24 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1354311.1674415202.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 14:20:02 -0500
Message-ID: <1354312.1674415202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1354312.1674415202%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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