Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
get_partition_parent felt that it could simply Assert that systable_getnext
found a tuple. This is unlike any other caller of that function, and it's
unsafe IMO --- in fact, the reason I noticed it was that the Assert failed.
(OK, I was working with known-inconsistent catalog contents, but I wasn't
expecting the DB to fall over quite that violently. The behavior in a
non-assert-enabled build wouldn't be very nice, either.) Fix it to do what
other callers do, namely an actual runtime-test-and-elog.
Also, standardize the wording of elog messages that are complaining about
unexpected failure of systable_getnext. 90% of them say "could not find
tuple for <object>", so make the remainder do likewise. Many of the
holdouts were using the phrasing "cache lookup failed", which is outright
misleading since no catcache search is involved.
The main change here is to call security_compute_create_name_raw()
rather than security_compute_create_raw(). This ups the minimum
requirement for libselinux from 2.0.99 to 2.1.10, but it looks
like most distributions will have picked that up before 9.3 is out.
KaiGai Kohei
This is still pretty rough - among other things, the documentation
needs work, and the messages need a visit from the style police -
but this gets the basic framework in place.
KaiGai Kohei
