Re: pgindent versus struct members and typedefs
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-05-05T21:47:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 05:51:15PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> writes: >> On Dec 3, 2025, at 06:00, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I tried to fix pgindent for a few, but the code is basically impenetrable. >>> I didn't find any fixes upstream [0], either. As noted above, we could >>> also fix it by avoiding the naming conflicts. However, I can't imagine >>> that's worth the churn, and I've already spent way too much time on this, >>> so IMHO the best thing to do here is nothing. > >> I think that’s fine. > > Agreed, not worth the trouble to fool with. For fun, I spent some time with an AI tool to develop the attached fix for this problem. The explanation seems reasonable to me, although I am by no means a pgindent expert. When I looked at this in December, I did find this similar commit from upstream [0], but I failed to make the connection with last_u_d. 0002 is the result of a pgindent run after applying 0001. You'll notice that it fixes the exact set of cases I found with grep upthread. [0] https://github.com/pstef/freebsd_indent/commit/afa2239 -- nathan