Bruce Momjian wrote:
The diff is here:
http://momjian.us/tmp/pgindent.diff
and I checked into CVS a copy of the typedef list I used from Andrew
Dunstan.
Is it worthwhile to consider writing up a how to run pgindent like
Bruce does page on the wiki? I've been scared off of that
Greg Smith wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The diff is here:
http://momjian.us/tmp/pgindent.diff
and I checked into CVS a copy of the typedef list I used from Andrew
Dunstan.
Is it worthwhile to consider writing up a how to run pgindent like
Bruce does page on the wiki?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
an up to date version of the list Bruce last used in a day or two, and then
get this better whacked into shape for another
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
an up to date version of the list Bruce last used in a day or two, and
then
get this better
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
an up to date version of the
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
an
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Does that mean you're going to do it, or are you waiting for some sort
of OK? I believe everyone who expressed an opinion is in favor.
I was waiting a few hours to get feedback. I will do it at 0100 GMT
(2000 EST).
You can do it
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Done. The diff is here:
http://momjian.us/tmp/pgindent.diff
and I checked into CVS a copy of the typedef list I used from Andrew
Dunstan.
Cool, thanks. Let the rebasing (if any) begin.
...Robert
--
Sent via
2010/2/18 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
In connection with the recent discussion of changing SearchSysCache call
format, Robert espoused the view that right now is the time when there
are a minimal number of outstanding patches that would suffer merge
problems from an invasive change. That
Magnus Hagander wrote:
2010/2/18 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
a solid base to patch
2010/2/18 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
There are of course people out
there with patches *already* that will have problems with this, but
they'll have the problem eventually anyway. The only real stopper
there is if someone (Simon would be the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
2010/2/18 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
It's worth noting that any patches that bit-rot because of pgindent run
can be fixed with the following procedure:
1. check out the source tree just before pgindent.
2. Apply patch
3. Run pgindent
4.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
a solid base to patch
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
Which they generally don't due to different sets of typedefs and
stuff? It's a solvable problem of course, but not quite as simple as
you make it sound :-)
The typedef file emitted by the buildfarm is
Tom Lane wrote:
Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
a solid base to patch against, rather than having to expect a major
merge
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
a solid base to patch against, rather than
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
Which they generally don't due to different sets of typedefs and
stuff? It's a solvable problem of course, but not quite as simple as
you make it sound :-)
The typedef
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
True. So everyone will have to send their patches to Bruce for bit-rot
fixing ;-)
I think Bruce ought to publish the specific typedef
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
Which they generally don't due to different sets of typedefs and
stuff? It's a solvable problem of course, but not quite as simple as
you make it
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
an up to date version of the list Bruce last used in a day or two, and
then get this better whacked into shape for another run at the more
traditional time.
I am ready to run pgindent
In connection with the recent discussion of changing SearchSysCache call
format, Robert espoused the view that right now is the time when there
are a minimal number of outstanding patches that would suffer merge
problems from an invasive change. That seems correct to me --- although
ideally
23 matches
Mail list logo
