Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:00:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:39:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > There we go: > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 06:06:35PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-16 21:02:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > OK, I assume we are good to go for Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Thanks for > > > the research. > > > > Yeah, I think we're ready, unless

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-05-16 21:02:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > OK, I assume we are good to go for Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Thanks for > > the research. > > Yeah, I think we're ready, unless anyone has a large patch they want > to stick in first ... I've this

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > OK, I assume we are good to go for Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Thanks for > the research. Yeah, I think we're ready, unless anyone has a large patch they want to stick in first ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:39:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > There we go: > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae=2017-05-16%2023:16:53=typedefs > > Yup, looks good now. Thanks! > > BTW, comparing the typedef

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/16/2017 08:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> There we go: >> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae=2017-05-16%2023:16:53=typedefs > Yup, looks good now. Thanks! > > BTW, comparing the typedef list to what I got a

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > There we go: > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae=2017-05-16%2023:16:53=typedefs Yup, looks good now. Thanks! BTW, comparing the typedef list to what I got a few hours ago, I see that "Function" is now a known

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/16/2017 06:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-05-16 18:43:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Specifically, we don't seem to have entries for any of the typedefs >> associated with the ICU code, eg UChar. This is not terribly >> surprising since none of the buildfarm critters contributing

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-05-16 18:56:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > No clue if there's some switch that needs to be toggled on the buildfarm > > side to accept the typedefs, I've never looked at that side of things. > > AFAIK, not; I think it just takes any typedef

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > No clue if there's some switch that needs to be toggled on the buildfarm > side to accept the typedefs, I've never looked at that side of things. AFAIK, not; I think it just takes any typedef reports that aren't too stale.

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-05-16 18:43:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Specifically, we don't seem to have entries for any of the typedefs > associated with the ICU code, eg UChar. This is not terribly > surprising since none of the buildfarm critters contributing typedef > lists are building with --with-icu. It looks

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? I've been doing some preliminary checking on what pgindent will do, and I notice that some typedef names are getting misindented because they

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Releasing alpha/beta is not the same as branching, which I didn't expect >> us to do for a while yet.. > Well, tagging then. Imo it still should be done before we tag > beta1/alpha1. Too late,

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-14 Thread Stephen Frost
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > > > > afternoon,

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-14 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > > > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? > > > > Shouldn't we

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-14 Thread Stephen Frost
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? > > Shouldn't we do that before we branch? And if Thursday still is the >

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-14 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? Shouldn't we do that before we branch? And if Thursday still is the intended alpha/beta release date, Wednesday would be too late,

[HACKERS] PG10 pgindent run

2017-05-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will