[psteinroe]

Stacked on #935.

Follow-up to #896, which listed this as not covered. A condition that stays on its keyword line (WHERE and HAVING with clauseBodyStyle: compact, and ON in every config) was indented for its continuation lines. When the condition only breaks inside the parentheses of a subquery, it has no continuation lines of its own. The indent then put the subquery two levels in and the closing parenthesis one level in, under nothing:

-- layout: expanded, clauseBodyStyle: compact
-- before
select *
from public.permissions
where exists (
    select 1
    from public.permission_set_permissions as rp
    where rp.permission_name = permissions.name
  );
-- after
select *
from public.permissions
where exists (
  select 1
  from public.permission_set_permissions as rp
  where rp.permission_name = permissions.name
);

The same happened to on exists ( in a join with the default config.

What changed

emit_clause_condition (compact) and the ON of a join leave out the continuation indent when the condition breaks only inside a subquery. That covers:

• a subquery link: exists (...), x in (...), x = any (...), (...), array(...);
• x <op> (subquery) or x <op> array(subquery), where x is a column, parameter or constant;
• not in front of either.

Everything else keeps the indent, including AND/OR chains, whose operands still continue one level in, with a subquery in them closing at that level.

Snapshot changes

All reviewed; one category: the body and ) of a subquery opened on a compact where/having line, or on an on line, move one level left, so ) closes under the keyword. This is in compact_select_list*, scalar_subquery_expanded, sublink_bool_groups_expanded and, for ON with the default config, predicate.

New tests in subquery_layout.rs cover where exists (, where x = (, a chain with an exists operand, and on x = (.

Not covered

A lone select item in compact layout has the same pattern: select coalesce( indents its arguments two levels and closes one level in. That is the select-list indent from #865 and would need the same rule there.