| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> |
| Subject: | Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |
| Date: | 2017-05-19 19:17:24 |
| Message-ID: | a268e9f0-0493-7f51-3042-a0f780712783@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/19/17 11:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> I certainly would rather that our version matched something that's under
> active maintenance someplace. But it seems like there are two good
> arguments for having a copy in our tree:
Is pgindent going to be indented by pgindent?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-19 19:28:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #14657: Server process segmentation fault in v10, May 10th dev snapshot |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-05-19 19:12:32 | Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |