Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:14:45 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Missing HashAgg EXPLAIN ANALYZE details for parallel plans
Message-ID: <20200619191445.GA20665@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAApHDvoJQTHGEf+hN0V1F7Y1bOdFbP7xA_EW_GoPpy9PyfJa2Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Jun-19, David Rowley wrote:


> > +   size = offsetof(SharedAggInfo, sinstrument)
> > +       + pcxt->nworkers * sizeof(AggregateInstrumentation);
> >
> > => There's a couple places where I'd prefer to see "+" at the end of the
> > preceding line (but YMMV).
> 
> I pretty much just copied the whole of that code from nodeSort.c. I'm
> more inclined to just keep it as similar to that as possible. However,
> if pgindent decides otherwise, then I'll go with that. I imagine it
> won't move it though as that code has already been through indentation
> a few times before.

pgindent won't change your choice here.  This seems an ideological
issue; each committer has got their style.  Some people prefer to put
operators at the end of the line, others do it this way.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services