Hi,
On 2023-08-12 17:03:37 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2023-08-11 Fr 19:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Geoghegan<pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> > > My workflow up until now has avoiding making updates to typedefs.list
> > > in patches. I only update typedefs locally, for long enough to indent
> > > my code. The final patch doesn't retain any typedefs.list changes.
> > Yeah, I've done the same and will have to stop.
> >
> > > I guess that I can't do that anymore. Hopefully maintaining the
> > > typedefs.list file isn't as inconvenient as it once seemed to me to
> > > be.
> > I don't think it'll be a problem. If your rule is "add new typedef
> > names added by your patch to typedefs.list, keeping them in
> > alphabetical order" then it doesn't seem very complicated, and
> > hopefully conflicts between concurrently-developed patches won't
> > be common.
>
> My recollection is that missing typedefs cause indentation that kinda sticks
> out like a sore thumb.
>
> The reason we moved to a buildfarm based typedefs list was that some
> typedefs are platform dependent, so any list really needs to be the union of
> the found typedefs on various platforms, and the buildfarm was a convenient
> vehicle for doing that. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't manually add a
> typedef you have added in your code.
It's a somewhat annoying task though, find all the typedefs, add them to the
right place in the file (we have an out of order entry right now). I think a
script that *adds* (but doesn't remove) local typedefs would make this less
painful.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
