Re: potentially missed pgindent in REL_19_STABLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: potentially missed pgindent in REL_19_STABLE
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqH2vCYhPM6nezXvFBX6weQaqUyikAFKpN+_6JFaxkyRzQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: potentially missed pgindent in REL_19_STABLE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 11:13 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 5:33 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> >> will there would be a tree-wide
> >> pgindent run before tagging REL_19_0?
>
> > That's a good question. src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES mentions runs before
> > beta and before branching, but I couldn't find anything about a final
> > run before .0.
>
> We haven't done that in the past, and in general I don't think
> it's policy to expect full pgindent cleanliness in back branches.
> One reason for that is that back-patches typically retain the
> master-branch patch's formatting, even if an older version of
> pgindent would have done something different with some constructs.
>
> For instance, commit b518ba4af affected a lot of places, making it
> hard to say which handling of "..." is right for pre-v19.  So now
> you'd likely get diffs from a tree-wide reindent in v18 and before
> no matter which pgindent version you used.
>
> I have no objection to applying the proposed patch, though.
> At this point there's still value in avoiding unnecessary
> diffs between v19 and v20.

Thanks, applied.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sehrope Sarkuni
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Speed up repeat() for larger counts
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Recovery at replica stuck because recovery incorrectly trusts an old high-water mark