Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation

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