On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 7:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 9:16 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 4:28 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 01:56:50PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Added missing copy related data structures to typedefs.list, these
> > > > data structures were added while copy files were split during the
> > > > recent commit. I found this while running pgindent for parallel copy
> > > > patches.
> > > > The Attached patch has the changes for the same.
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Uh, we usually only update the typedefs file before we run pgindent on
> > > the master branch.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, Thanks for the clarification. I was not sure as in few of the
> > enhancements it was included as part of the patches.
> >
>
> Yeah, I do that while committing patches that require changes in
> typedefs. It is not a norm and I am not sure how much value it adds to
> do it separately for the missing ones unless you are making changes in
> the same file they are used and you are facing unrelated diffs due to
> those missing ones.
I found this while I was running pgindent for parallel copy patches. I
was not sure if this change was left out intentionally or by mistake.
I'm fine if it is committed separately or together at a later point.
It is not a major problem for my patch since I know the change, I will
do the required adjustment when I make changes on top of it, if it is
not getting committed. But I felt we can commit this since it is a
recent change.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
