Andrew Dunstan wrote: > What makes you think this isn't possible to run pgindent? I have to say, I've been rather mystified by the difficulty attributed to running pgindent. During work on the SSI patch, I ran it about once every two weeks on files involved in the patch, just so that it would be easier to review by people used to that format. I also tried to keep src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list up to date with new structures, so that my runs were good. Granted, when the official run was done there were a few adjustments to typedefs.list, and some comments which were added after the commit of the main part of the patch hadn't yet been wrapped to the right line length, but on the whole I didn't find it a big deal to stay relatively close by doing periodic runs. Maybe three minutes every two weeks. When people talk like it's hugely difficult or hard to understand, I wonder if they have actually made the attempt. When someone is eager for feedback on a patch, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask them to read the README for pgindent and try to generate a patch with conforming results. Now, the other aspect to this whole discussion is that people often have code they have developed for academic purposes or for their own use which they want to offer to the community "FWIW", and I think we sometimes miss an opportunity to take advantage of someone else's work because of an assumption that they have some vested interest in it's acceptance. The fact that someone doesn't care enough to try to work with the community to get their patch accepted doesn't *always* mean that we're better off for ignoring that patch. Maybe that's true 90% of the time or better, but it seems to me that sometimes our community is a bit provincial. And I can't help but wonder why, in an off-list discussion with Michael Cahill about the SSI technology he commented that he was originally intending to implement the technique in PostgreSQL, but later chose Oracle Berkeley DB and then latter InnoDB instead. *Maybe* he was looking toward being hired by Oracle, and *maybe* it was because the other databases already had predicate locking and true serializable transaction isolation levels -- but was part of it the reputation of the community? I keep wondering. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers