On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> + { /* pg_ctl command w path, properly quoted */ >>>> + PQExpBuffer pg_ctl_path = createPQExpBuffer(); >>>> + printfPQExpBuffer(pg_ctl_path, "%s%spg_ctl",
>> I think it's worth reducing the scope of variables when that's as >> simple as putting them inside a block that you have to create anyway, >> but I'm skeptical about the idea that one would create a block just to >> reduce the scope of the variables. I don't think that's our usual >> practice, and I would expect the compiler to detect where the variable >> is referenced first and last anyway.
> I enjoy adding the blocks for explicit variable scoping and for quick > navigation in vim (the % key navigates between matching {}'s). But I want > to fit in with the style conventions of the project.
Another point here is that code like this will look quite a bit different after pgindent gets done with it --- that comment will not stay where you put it, for example. Some of our worst formatting messes come from code wherein somebody adhered to their own favorite layout style without any thought for how it would play with pgindent.
regards, tom lane
Ahh, I didn't know about pgindent, but now I see it in /src/tools. I can run that on my code before submitting.
I found theselinks about the style convention and will make sure my patch fits the conventions before submitting it.
