Prev: Streaming replication and unfit messages
Next: [HACKERS] SR: "pseudo replication database of the primary" ...
From: Andrew Dunstan on 18 Feb 2010 09:15


Tom Lane wrote:
> Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
> pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
> bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
> a solid base to patch against, rather than having to expect a major
> merge hassle at the end of beta.
>
>
>
>
> (BTW, by "now" I don't mean *today* --- seems better to wait till
> alpha4 has been wrapped. But as soon as that's done.)
>
>

I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
an up to date version of the list Bruce last used in a day or two, and
then get this better whacked into shape for another run at the more
traditional time.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Bruce Momjian on 18 Feb 2010 09:21
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Which leads me to the thought that rather than postponing running
> > pgindent until late beta, maybe we should run it *now*, and get the
> > bulk of its work done for the new code in 9.0. Then people would have
> > a solid base to patch against, rather than having to expect a major
> > merge hassle at the end of beta.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (BTW, by "now" I don't mean *today* --- seems better to wait till
> > alpha4 has been wrapped. But as soon as that's done.)
> >
> >
>
> I have a TODO on fixing some of the typedef finding. But I can generate
> an up to date version of the list Bruce last used in a day or two, and
> then get this better whacked into shape for another run at the more
> traditional time.

I am ready to run pgindent whenever requested.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Andrew Dunstan on 18 Feb 2010 09:48


Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
>> Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
>> Which they generally don't due to different sets of typedefs and
>> stuff? It's a solvable problem of course, but not quite as simple as
>> you make it sound :-)
>>
>
> The typedef file emitted by the buildfarm is supposed to be rather
> static, no?
>
>

Umm, static in what sense? Clearly if we add things to the code that can
involve extra typedefs being found. The buildfarm's list is the union of
all the typedefs found by the contributing members at the time they do
their runs.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tom Lane on 18 Feb 2010 10:11
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?

> True. So everyone will have to send their patches to Bruce for bit-rot
> fixing ;-)

I think Bruce ought to publish the specific typedef list he uses for
each run (maybe commit it in src/tools/pgindent/). In principle,
at least, that's the only variable that couldn't be reproduced by
someone else.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Alvaro Herrera on 18 Feb 2010 10:13
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >>Doesn't that require that all pgindent runs produce the same output?
> >>Which they generally don't due to different sets of typedefs and
> >>stuff? It's a solvable problem of course, but not quite as simple as
> >>you make it sound :-)
> >
> >The typedef file emitted by the buildfarm is supposed to be rather
> >static, no?
>
> Umm, static in what sense? Clearly if we add things to the code that
> can involve extra typedefs being found. The buildfarm's list is the
> union of all the typedefs found by the contributing members at the
> time they do their runs.

Yeah, but most typedefs are already there; I mean we're not likely to
change even 5% of the current list.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Streaming replication and unfit messages
Next: [HACKERS] SR: "pseudo replication database of the primary" ...