Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > In terms of pgindent, I'm surprised about these lines: > + missingval = OidFunctionCall3( > + F_ARRAY_IN,
> Why did you put a newline there? In ancient times there was a reason > for that in some cases, because pgindent would move the argument to the > left of the open parens, but it doesn't do that anymore and IMO it's > just ugly. We have quite a few leftovers from this ancient practice, > I've been thinking about removing these ... I think some people feel this is good style, but I agree with you about not liking it. A related practice I could do without is eating an extra line for an argument-closing paren, as in this example in tsquery_op.c: Datum tsq_mcontained(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) { PG_RETURN_DATUM( DirectFunctionCall2( tsq_mcontains, PG_GETARG_DATUM(1), PG_GETARG_DATUM(0) ) ); } Aside from the waste of vertical space, it's never very clear to me (nor, evidently, to pgindent) how such a paren ought to be indented. So to my eye this could be four lines shorter and look better. regards, tom lane