Re: pgindent vs try/catch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pgindent vs try/catch
Date
Msg-id 1444.24.211.141.25.1095015485.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to pgindent vs try/catch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgindent vs try/catch
Re: pgindent vs try/catch
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane said:
> I'm fairly displeased with what pgindent has done to single-line PG_TRY
> constructs, as in this example from pl_exec.c:
>
> *************** exec_stmt_block(PLpgSQL_execstate * esta
> *** 911,922 ****
>                                 SPI_result_code_string(xrc));
>
>                PG_TRY();
> !               {
> !                       rc = exec_stmts(estate, block->body);
> !               }
>                PG_CATCH();
>                {
> !                       ErrorData *edata;
>                        PLpgSQL_exceptions *exceptions;
>                        int                     j;
>
> --- 912,921 ----
>                                 SPI_result_code_string(xrc));
>
>                PG_TRY();
> !               rc = exec_stmts(estate, block->body);
>                PG_CATCH();
>                {
> !                       ErrorData  *edata;
>                        PLpgSQL_exceptions *exceptions;
>                        int                     j;
>
> *************** exec_stmt_block(PLpgSQL_execstate * esta
>
> On the whole I'd prefer that pgindent not suppress "unnecessary"
> brace pairs at all.


I had that argument a while ago with Bruce and lost :-) . It does horrible
things to if/else constructs too. The workaround is to put a comment in the
block. On the whole I agree with you, though. If I put braces in my program
it's for a reason, and the indenter shouldn't think it knows better than me.

cheers

andrew




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: pgindent vs try/catch
Next
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: security definer on views