Hi, On 2023-08-12 17:03:37 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 2023-08-11 Fr 19:02, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Geoghegan<p...@bowt.ie> writes: > > > My workflow up until now has avoiding making updates to typedefs.list > > > in patches. I only update typedefs locally, for long enough to indent > > > my code. The final patch doesn't retain any typedefs.list changes. > > Yeah, I've done the same and will have to stop. > > > > > I guess that I can't do that anymore. Hopefully maintaining the > > > typedefs.list file isn't as inconvenient as it once seemed to me to > > > be. > > I don't think it'll be a problem. If your rule is "add new typedef > > names added by your patch to typedefs.list, keeping them in > > alphabetical order" then it doesn't seem very complicated, and > > hopefully conflicts between concurrently-developed patches won't > > be common. > > My recollection is that missing typedefs cause indentation that kinda sticks > out like a sore thumb. > > The reason we moved to a buildfarm based typedefs list was that some > typedefs are platform dependent, so any list really needs to be the union of > the found typedefs on various platforms, and the buildfarm was a convenient > vehicle for doing that. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't manually add a > typedef you have added in your code.
It's a somewhat annoying task though, find all the typedefs, add them to the right place in the file (we have an out of order entry right now). I think a script that *adds* (but doesn't remove) local typedefs would make this less painful. Greetings, Andres Freund
