| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgindent fixups |
| Date: | 2016-06-09 14:27:29 |
| Message-ID: | 14416.1465482449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So I really would like to get a pgindent run done. Any objections to
> doing it sometime RSN? It is of course possible that it might make
> something that we want to revert later harder to revert, but I think
> we should just accept that risk and move forward.
Now that we bit the bullet on 137805f89, I do not think there's anything
else with a really high probability of being reverted. Might as well do
the run. Please note that typedefs.list is already out of date.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-06-09 14:28:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-09 14:22:03 | Re: pgindent fixups |