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