From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl>, 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: <20230122223806.3sgew6qswhsczae7@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <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> <20230122223806.3sgew6qswhsczae7@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sun, 22 Jan 2023 14:38:06 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1495022.1674430107.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:28:27 -0500
Message-ID: <1495023.1674430107@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1495023.1674430107%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-01-22 18:20:49 +0100, Jelte Fennema wrote:
>> I don't think the amount of pain is really much lower if we reformat
>> 10,000 or 300,000 lines of code, without automation both would be
>> quite painful. But the git commands I shared in my previous email
>> should alleviate most of that pain.

> It's practically not possible to review a 300k line change. And perhaps I'm
> paranoid, but I would have a problem with a commit in the history that's
> practically not reviewable.

As far as that goes, if you had concern then you could run the indentation
tool locally and confirm you got matching results.  But this does point up
that the processes Jelte suggested all depend critically on indentation
results being 100% reproducible by anybody.

So the more I think about it the less excited I am about depending on
clang-format, because version skew in peoples' clang installations seems
inevitable, and there's good reason to fear that that would show up
as varying indentation results.

			regards, tom lane