From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgindent versus struct members and typedefs
In-reply-to: <afplW8DvRONDc1yl@nathan>
References: <aS9hkwnkWf3dZIA_@nathan>
 <347EA055-D626-414C-B10D-7E70041B9B55@gmail.com>
 <509793.1764715875@sss.pgh.pa.us> <afplW8DvRONDc1yl@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 05 May 2026 16:47:07 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <729176.1778039019.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 23:43:39 -0400
Message-ID: <729177.1778039019@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/729177.1778039019%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> For fun, I spent some time with an AI tool to develop the attached fix for
> this problem.  The explanation seems reasonable to me, although I am by no
> means a pgindent expert.  When I looked at this in December, I did find
> this similar commit from upstream [0], but I failed to make the connection
> with last_u_d.  0002 is the result of a pgindent run after applying 0001.
> You'll notice that it fixes the exact set of cases I found with grep
> upthread.

Those changes are clearly improvements.  I'm too tired to investigate
right now, but I wonder if we should adopt the upstream fix you
mention?  (Or more generally, other changes they made since we forked?)

			regards, tom lane