Re: pgindent weirdness

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 04/20/2011 04:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> So the list of possible additions Andrew supplied are cases where we
>> never reference those typedefs --- seems like a cleanup opportunity.

> I think the best cleanup idea is Aidan's, namely is we have declared 
> "typdef struct foo { ... } foo;" we should use "foo" in the code  
> instead of "struct foo". Then the typedef will be referenced, and the 
> code will be cleaner, and we won't run into the pgindent "struct" bug 
> either, so it's a win/win/win.

We want to do that in any case.  I think that Bruce was suggesting going
further and actively removing unreferenced struct tags from the
declaration sites.  I'm less enthused about that.  It would save nothing
except some probably-unmeasurable amount of compile time, and it'd
result in a lot of diffs that might come back to bite future
back-patching efforts.
        regards, tom lane