On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:55 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> > +1 to indicate support against/for the change.
>
> I'm +1 for the change, for these reasons:
>
> - Fewer back-patch merge conflicts. The decls section of long functions
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
>
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:04 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
>
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0,
On 29.01.24 16:03, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
voting to gauge community opinion.
So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
+1 to indicate
Hi,
On January 29, 2024 2:09:23 PM PST, Tom Lane wrote:
>Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2024-01-29 15:01:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> And it still baffles me why we allow everyone to pick their own system for
>>> capitalizing identifiers out of a hat, without even insisting on consistency
>>>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2024-01-29 15:01:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> And it still baffles me why we allow everyone to pick their own system for
>> capitalizing identifiers out of a hat, without even insisting on consistency
>> from one end of the same identifier to the other.
> Yes.
Hi,
On 2024-01-29 15:01:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> And it still baffles me why we allow everyone to pick their own system for
> capitalizing identifiers out of a hat, without even insisting on consistency
> from one end of the same identifier to the other.
Yes. Please. I hate some
On 2024-01-29 Mo 14:58, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-12-27 12:48:40 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
Postgres currently requires all variables to be declared at the top of
the function, because it specifies -Wdeclaration-after-statement. One
of the reasons that we had this warning was
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:38 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> -0.5 from me, for exactly those reasons Robert said. I wouldn't mind
> removing the compiler flag as long as we mostly keep the current style
> of declarations at top, with exceptions when it really makes sense. But
> in practice it
Hi,
On 2023-12-27 12:48:40 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> Postgres currently requires all variables to be declared at the top of
> the function, because it specifies -Wdeclaration-after-statement. One
> of the reasons that we had this warning was because C89 required this
> style of
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, at 12:03 PM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
>
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0,
On 29/01/2024 19:07, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:03 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
voting to gauge community opinion.
So my suggestion is for people
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 10:42, Mark Dilger
wrote:
> I don't think anybody is proposing re-working the existing codebase. I
> understand this to be only about allowing new code to use the newer style.
> Personally, I like, as much as possible, to use initializations to const
> variables and avoid
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:03 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
>
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0,
Em seg., 29 de jan. de 2024 às 12:03, Jelte Fennema-Nio
escreveu:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
>
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1,
> On Jan 29, 2024, at 7:35 AM, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 10:31, Mark Dilger
> wrote:
>
> -Infinity for refactoring the entire codebase and backpatching.
>
> I don't think anybody is proposing re-working the existing codebase. I
> understand this to be only about
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:23:38AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
>> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
>> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
>> voting to gauge community opinion.
>
>> So my suggestion is for people
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 10:31, Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 2024, at 7:03 AM, Jelte Fennema-Nio
> wrote:
> >
> > So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> > +1 to indicate support against/for the change.
>
> -1 for me.
>
> -Infinity for refactoring the
> On Jan 29, 2024, at 7:03 AM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> +1 to indicate support against/for the change.
-1 for me.
-Infinity for refactoring the entire codebase and backpatching.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB:
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> +1 to indicate support
I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
voting to gauge community opinion.
So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
+1 to indicate support against/for the change.
I'll start:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 at 16:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> This has already been debated, and the conclusion was that we would
> stick to the existing style for consistency reasons.
I looked through the archives quite a bit, but I couldn't find any
conclusive debate about the current declaration style.
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> Postgres currently requires all variables to be declared at the top of
> the function, because it specifies -Wdeclaration-after-statement. One
> of the reasons that we had this warning was because C89 required this
> style of declaration. Requiring it everywhere made
Postgres currently requires all variables to be declared at the top of
the function, because it specifies -Wdeclaration-after-statement. One
of the reasons that we had this warning was because C89 required this
style of declaration. Requiring it everywhere made backporting easier,
since some of
24 matches
Mail list logo
