On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 6:23 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > I wonder if we're interested in keeping a (very short) manually- > maintained list of symbols that we know are in use but the scripts > don't extract for whatever reason.
+1. I think this idea has been proposed and rejected before, but I think it's more important to have our code indented correctly than to be able to rely on a 100% automated process for gathering typedefs. There is of course the risk that the manually generated file will accumulate stale cruft over time, but I don't really see that being a big problem. First, it doesn't cost much to have a few extra symbols in there. Second, I suspect someone will go through it at least every couple of years, if not more often, and figure out which entries are still doing something. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
