On 2017-06-16 13:34:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I could live with both of these proposed > > changes, the selection of the changes you posted looks like it could be > > improved by code changes, but that's obviously a large amount of work. > > In the end, the only thing that fixes this sort of stuff is to be more > rigid about making the code fit into 80 columns to begin with. I get > the impression though that a lot of people work in editor windows that > are wider than that, so the code looks fine to them when it slops over > a bit.
That, but maybe also that it's often slightly too long line vs. weird multiline mess. A good number of things pgindent indents weirdly can be prevented by just not adding a linebreak, which isn't a great fix... > > At this point however I wonder whether just moving to the new tool on > > its own wouldn't be a big enough change - we could just delay that > > decision until we've got the rest done at least. > > I'm torn between that approach and "let's just have one big flag day > and get it over with". I don't have a strong opinion on this. > I think having the rules incrementally changing from one release to > the next will be a huge headache. Yea, I was more thinking of getting the new indent in, and then making the followup decisions a few days after. > I do intend to apply the diffs to HEAD in multiple steps, just to > make them more reviewable. But I think we should probably absorb > all the changes we want into v10, not leave some for later cycles. Btw, how much are you planning to backpatch these? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
