On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The traditional reason for not doing pgindent too often has been that
> it'd cause more work for people who have to rebase their patches over
> pgindent's results. If we want to do it more often, then in order to
> respond to that concern, I think we need to do it really often ---
> not necessarily quite continuously, but often enough that pgindent
> is only changing recently-committed code. In this way, it'd be likely
> that anyone with a patch touching that same code would only need to
> rebase once not twice. The approaches involving an automated run
> give a guarantee of that, otherwise we don't have a guarantee; but
> as long as it's not many days delay I think it wouldn't be bad.
>
> Intervals on the order of a month seem likely to be the worst of
> both worlds from this standpoint --- too long for people to wait
> before rebasing their patch, yet short enough that they'd have
> to do so repeatedly.
Yeah, I get the point. It depends somewhat on how often you think
people will rebase. The main thing against more frequent pgindent runs
is that it clutters the history. If done manually, it's also a lot of
work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
