Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
Date
Msg-id a148c259-d190-c797-eaeb-27b5edbd1d5b@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
Responses Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers


On 2023-06-21 We 05:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 20.06.23 17:38, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
+1, although I wonder if we shouldn't follow pgindent's new lead
and require some argument(s).

That makes sense to me.  Here is a small update with this behavior change and associated documentation update.

I'm intending to add some of the new pgindent features to pgperltidy. Preparatory to that here's a rewrite of pgperltidy in perl - no new features yet but it does remove the hardcoded path, and requires you to pass in one or more files / directories as arguments.

Are you planning to touch pgperlcritic and pgperlsyncheck as well? 


Yeah, it would make sense to.


If not, part of my patch would still be useful.  Maybe I should commit my posted patch for PG16, to keep consistency with pgindent, and then your work would presumably be considered for PG17.


That sounds like a good plan.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Date:
Subject: bgwriter doesn't flush WAL stats
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Making empty Bitmapsets always be NULL