Horton
Menu

Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Jelte Fennema <postgres@jeltef.nl>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-02-06T17:17:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 02.02.23 07:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
>> Regarding the concern about a pre-receive hook blocking an emergency push, the
>> hook could approve every push where a string like "pgindent: no" appears in a
>> commit message within the push.  You'd still want to make the tree clean
>> sometime the same week or so.  It's cheap to provide a break-glass like that.
> 
> I think the real question here is whether we can get all (or at least
> a solid majority of) committers to accept such draconian constraints.
> I'd buy into it, and evidently so would you, but I can't help noting
> that less than a quarter of active committers have bothered to
> comment on this thread.  I suspect the other three-quarters would
> be quite annoyed if we tried to institute such requirements.  That's
> not manpower we can afford to drive away.

I have some concerns about this.

First, as a matter of principle, it would introduce another level of 
gatekeeping power.  Right now, the committers are as a group in charge 
of what gets into the tree.  Adding commit hooks that are installed 
somewhere(?) by someone(?) and can only be seen by some(?) would upset 
that.  If we were using something like github or gitlab (not suggesting 
that, but for illustration), then you could put this kind of thing under 
.github/ or similar and then it would be under the same control as the 
source code itself.

Also, pgindent takes tens of seconds to run, so hooking that into the 
git push process would slow this down quite a bit.  And maybe we want to 
add pgperltidy and so on, where would this lead?  If somehow your local 
indenting doesn't give you the "correct" result for some reason, you 
might sit there for minutes and minutes trying to fix and push and fix 
and push.

Then, consider the typedefs issue.  If you add a typedef but don't add 
it to the typedefs list but otherwise pgindent your code perfectly, the 
push would be accepted.  If then later someone updates the typedefs 
list, perhaps from the build farm, it would then reject the indentation 
of your previously committed code, thus making it their problem.

I think a better way to address these issues would be making this into a 
test suite, so that you can run some command that checks "is everything 
indented correctly".  Then you can run this locally, on the build farm, 
in the cfbot etc. in a uniform way and apply the existing 
blaming/encouragement processes like for any other test failure.

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix comment from commit 22655aa231.

  2. Add a few recent commits to .git-blame-ignore-revs.

  3. Pre-beta2 mechanical code beautification.

  4. Pre-beta mechanical code beautification.

  5. Make agreed-on updates in perltidy options.

  6. Remove obsolete pgindent options --code-base and --build

  7. Integrate pg_bsd_indent into our build/test infrastructure.

  8. Sync pg_bsd_indent's copyright notices with Postgres practice.

  9. Import pg_bsd_indent sources.

  10. pgindent: filter files for the --commit option

  11. pgindent: more ways to find files to indent

  12. Fix pgindent --show-diff option.

  13. Add non-destructive modes to pgindent

  14. Initial pgindent run with pg_bsd_indent version 2.0.