Hi! I've ran pdindent on the whole Postgres and it'd changed an awful lot of source files. Won't it create a lot of merge conflicts?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 8:48 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > On 2023-Jan-23, Tom Lane wrote: > > > 1. [...] So now I think that we should > > stick to the convention that it's on the user to install > > pg_bsd_indent somewhere in their PATH; all we'll be doing with > > this change is eliminating the step of fetching pg_bsd_indent's > > source files from somewhere else. > > +1 > > > 2. Given #1, it'll be prudent to continue having pgindent > > double-check that pg_bsd_indent reports a specific version > > number. We could imagine starting to use the main Postgres > > version number for that, but I'm inclined to continue with > > its existing numbering series. > > +1 > > > 3. If we do nothing special, the first mass reindentation is > > going to reformat the pg_bsd_indent sources per PG style, > > which is ... er ... not the way they look now. Do we want > > to accept that outcome, or take steps to prevent pgindent > > from processing pg_bsd_indent? I have a feeling that manual > > cleanup would be necessary if we let such reindentation > > happen, but I haven't experimented. > > Hmm, initially it must just be easier to have an exception so that > pg_bsd_indent itself isn't indented. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — > https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ > #error <https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/#error> "Operator lives in the wrong > universe" > ("Use of cookies in real-time system development", M. Gleixner, M. Mc > Guire) > > > -- Regards, Nikita Malakhov Postgres Professional https://postgrespro.ru/
