Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
Date
Msg-id c6eaa74b-0ccf-8d6c-6d63-87c3a88c2e99@eisentraut.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgindent vs. pgperltidy command-line arguments
List pgsql-hackers
On 25.05.23 15:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
>> Until PG15, calling pgindent without arguments would process the whole
>> tree.  Now you get
>> No files to process at ./src/tools/pgindent/pgindent line 372.
>> Is that intentional?
> 
> It was intentional, cf b16259b3c and the linked discussion.
> 
>> Also, pgperltidy accepts no arguments and always processes the whole
>> tree.  It would be nice if there were a way to process individual files
>> or directories, like pgindent can.
> 
> +1, although I wonder if we shouldn't follow pgindent's new lead
> and require some argument(s).

That makes sense to me.  Here is a small update with this behavior 
change and associated documentation update.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage
Next
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Replace (GUC_UNIT_MEMORY | GUC_UNIT_TIME) with GUC_UNIT in guc.c