Обсуждение: pgindent run
Here's the diff from a pgindent run. The results look kosher to me - I had to do a little surgery on queryjumble.h due to it having an unused typedef. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 00:29, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Here's the diff from a pgindent run.
--- a/src/backend/commands/policy.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/policy.c
@@ -587,65 +587,65 @@ RemoveRoleFromObjectPolicy(Oid roleid, Oid
classid, Oid policy_id)
/* If any roles remain, update the policy entry. */
if (num_roles > 0)
{
- /* This is the array for the new tuple */
- role_ids = construct_array(role_oids, num_roles, OIDOID,
- sizeof(Oid), true, TYPALIGN_INT);
+ /* This is the array for the new tuple */
+ role_ids = construct_array(role_oids, num_roles, OIDOID,
+ sizeof(Oid), true, TYPALIGN_INT);
I wasn't too sure about the status of this one. Michael did mention it
in [1], but Tom mentioned that was on purpose to ease backpatching.
I'm not too clear on if Tom intended it should stay unindented until
"rewriting that whole function in a little bit".
David
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YM0puvBnbBIZxJt2@paquier.xyz
On 6/28/21 8:52 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 00:29, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> Here's the diff from a pgindent run.
> --- a/src/backend/commands/policy.c
> +++ b/src/backend/commands/policy.c
> @@ -587,65 +587,65 @@ RemoveRoleFromObjectPolicy(Oid roleid, Oid
> classid, Oid policy_id)
> /* If any roles remain, update the policy entry. */
> if (num_roles > 0)
> {
> - /* This is the array for the new tuple */
> - role_ids = construct_array(role_oids, num_roles, OIDOID,
> - sizeof(Oid), true, TYPALIGN_INT);
> + /* This is the array for the new tuple */
> + role_ids = construct_array(role_oids, num_roles, OIDOID,
> + sizeof(Oid), true, TYPALIGN_INT);
>
> I wasn't too sure about the status of this one. Michael did mention it
> in [1], but Tom mentioned that was on purpose to ease backpatching.
> I'm not too clear on if Tom intended it should stay unindented until
> "rewriting that whole function in a little bit".
>
> David
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YM0puvBnbBIZxJt2@paquier.xyz
I'll let Tom speak for himself, but I somewhat doubt he meant the code
to stay badly indented for more than a short period of time.
Unfortunately, while pgindent has code that allows protecting comments
from being formatted, it doesn't have a similar mechanism for code AFAICT.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On 6/28/21 8:29 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Here's the diff from a pgindent run. The results look kosher to me - I > had to do a little surgery on queryjumble.h due to it having an unused > typedef. > > This time run against the right branch .. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 6/28/21 8:52 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>> I wasn't too sure about the status of this one. Michael did mention it
>> in [1], but Tom mentioned that was on purpose to ease backpatching.
>> I'm not too clear on if Tom intended it should stay unindented until
>> "rewriting that whole function in a little bit".
> I'll let Tom speak for himself, but I somewhat doubt he meant the code
> to stay badly indented for more than a short period of time.
I did not. If you can give me an hour or so, I'll get the patch
I previously proposed [1] committed, and then this issue will go away.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1573181.1624220108%40sss.pgh.pa.us
I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> I'll let Tom speak for himself, but I somewhat doubt he meant the code
>> to stay badly indented for more than a short period of time.
> I did not. If you can give me an hour or so, I'll get the patch
> I previously proposed [1] committed, and then this issue will go away.
Wait ... I did already, at 5a0f1c8c0. Are you sure you were indenting
current HEAD?
regards, tom lane
On 6/28/21 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >>> I'll let Tom speak for himself, but I somewhat doubt he meant the code >>> to stay badly indented for more than a short period of time. >> I did not. If you can give me an hour or so, I'll get the patch >> I previously proposed [1] committed, and then this issue will go away. > Wait ... I did already, at 5a0f1c8c0. Are you sure you were indenting > current HEAD? > > No, see revised patch. I posted at 10.13 cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 6/28/21 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wait ... I did already, at 5a0f1c8c0. Are you sure you were indenting
>> current HEAD?
> No, see revised patch. I posted at 10.13
Right, new version looks better.
regards, tom lane