pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10143.1250006178@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor
NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)
Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Only if they aren't applied by then. One reason that we normally only >> run pgindent at the end of the devel cycle is that that's when >> (presumably) the smallest amount of patches remain outstanding. > OK, I get it. Thanks for bearing with me. The theory that the > smallest amount of patches remain outstanding at that point is > probably only true if the pgindent run is done relatively soon after > the last CommitFest. In the 8.4 cycle, the pgindent run was done > something like 7 months after the start of the last CommitFest, by > which time a fair number of patches had accumulated. Yeah, that's a fair point. Maybe we should institute a new policy that pgindent should happen immediately after close of the last commitfest in a cycle, instead of delaying until almost release time. A more aggressive approach would be to run pgindent immediately after the close of *each* commitfest, but that would tend to break patches that had gotten punted to the next fest. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: