This code isn't used, and there's no clear reason why anybody would ever
want to use it. These traversal mechanisms don't yield a visitation order
that is semantically meaningful for any external purpose, nor are they
any faster or simpler than the left-to-right or right-to-left traversals.
(In fact, some rough testing suggests they are slower :-(.) Moreover,
these mechanisms are impossible to test in any arm's-length fashion; doing
so requires knowledge of the red-black tree's internal implementation.
Hence, let's just jettison them.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17735.1505003111@sss.pgh.pa.us
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
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
While we don't need multiple iterators at the moment, the interface is
nicer and less dangerous this way.
Aleksander Alekseev, with some changes by me.
