Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)
Date
Msg-id 27987.1250016795@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Where it really bit me as when it reindented the DATA() statements
>> that were touched by ALTER TABLE ... SET STATISTICS DISTINCT.  It's
>> not so hard to compare code, but comparing DATA() lines is the pits.

> Oh? Maybe that's a problem we need to address more directly. I just 
> looked at what it did to the DATA lines - it seems to have changed 501 
> of them, and all the changes seem to be to do with tabbing.

That's interesting --- the whitespace in those macros has always been
wildly inconsistent, so I assumed pgindent wasn't touching them at all.
I wonder what it thinks it's doing...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: "Hot standby"?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: "Hot standby"?