From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
        Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
        Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Synchronize with imath upstream
In-reply-to: <FB934CD7-B508-4523-B920-F0EE9CCB1756@anarazel.de>
References: <20190205234750.GA2774@alvherre.pgsql>
 <FB934CD7-B508-4523-B920-F0EE9CCB1756@anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Wed, 06 Feb 2019 19:59:15 +0530"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23412.1549466124.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:15:24 -0500
Message-ID: <23413.1549466124@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On February 6, 2019 5:17:50 AM GMT+05:30, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndqu=
adrant.com> wrote:
>> I'm -1 for this myself.  I think there are a few places that could
>> benefit from it, but my fear is that many *more* places would get
>> worse.

> Because of imported code like ryu and imath? And because it can make cod=
e considerably better when used judiciously.

I don't object to keeping imported code in a form that matches upstream
as best we can.  (Should we also exclude such files from pgindent'ing?)

But changing conventions for our own code is an entirely different matter.
In this case, I think that having some places use it while the bulk of
the code doesn't is just a bad idea from a stylistic-consistency
standpoint.  It's pretty much the same reason why we still aren't allowing
// comments --- there's no toolchain-based reason not to, but a mishmash o=
f
comment styles would be ugly and hard to read.

			regards, tom lane