Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/2/18 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
>> pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
>> bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
>> a solid base to patch against, rather than having to expect a major
>> merge hassle at the end of beta.
> ...
> I think it's a good idea in general.
Yep, +1 for running pgindent now.
> There are of course people out
> there with patches *already* that will have problems with this, but
> they'll have the problem eventually anyway. The only real stopper
> there is if someone (Simon would be the most likelyi I guess?) has a
> big fixup change queued up or so - but if someone does, we can just
> postpone until right after that one...
It's worth noting that any patches that bit-rot because of pgindent runcan be fixed with the following procedure:
1. check out the source tree just before pgindent.
2. Apply patch
3. Run pgindent
4. Diff against source tree just after pgindent.
> The followup question is of course, what do we do with fixup patches
> that land *after* this? Do we run pgindent once more later in the
> cycle? That should be a fairly small run in that case, so it might be
> worth doing it that way?
Yeah, that was Tom's plan.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
