| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactor "mutually exclusive options" error reporting code in parse_subscription_options |
| Date: | 2021-05-25 06:00:22 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACV_mFYtgPxbTZ68b5+4MtUn3Ra48ETkq94pLEyAwhHT+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:59:37AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > I'm not able to grasp what are the incompatibilities we can have if
> > the enums are used as bit masks. It will be great if anyone throws
> > some light on this?
>
> 0176753 is one example.
Hm. I get it, it is the coding style incompatibilities. Thanks.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Chen | 2021-05-25 06:10:15 | Re: [PATCH] In psql \?, add [+] annotation where appropriate |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-05-25 05:49:08 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |