> 1. [...] So now I think that we should > stick to the convention that it's on the user to install > pg_bsd_indent somewhere in their PATH; all we'll be doing with > this change is eliminating the step of fetching pg_bsd_indent's > source files from somewhere else.
+1
> 2. Given #1, it'll be prudent to continue having pgindent > double-check that pg_bsd_indent reports a specific version > number. We could imagine starting to use the main Postgres > version number for that, but I'm inclined to continue with > its existing numbering series.
+1
> 3. If we do nothing special, the first mass reindentation is > going to reformat the pg_bsd_indent sources per PG style, > which is ... er ... not the way they look now. Do we want > to accept that outcome, or take steps to prevent pgindent > from processing pg_bsd_indent? I have a feeling that manual > cleanup would be necessary if we let such reindentation > happen, but I haven't experimented.
Hmm, initially it must just be easier to have an exception so that pg_bsd_indent itself isn't indented.
-- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ #error "Operator lives in the wrong universe" ("Use of cookies in real-time system development", M. Gleixner, M. Mc Guire)
