| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2021-05-24 01:34:29 |
| Message-ID: | YKsCpe2nTiedRiLL@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 01:47:24PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Thanks. I think using bitmaps would help us have clean code. This is
> also more extensible. See pseudo code at [1]. One disadvantage is that
> we might have bms_XXXfunction calls, but that's okay and it shouldn't
> add too much to the performance. Thoughts?
>
> [1]
> typedef enum SubOpts_enum
> {
> SUB_OPT_NONE = 0,
> SUB_OPT_CONNECT,
> SUB_OPT_ENABLED,
> SUB_OPT_CREATE_SLOT,
> SUB_OPT_SLOT_NAME,
> SUB_OPT_COPY_DATA,
> SUB_OPT_SYNCHRONOUS_COMMIT,
> SUB_OPT_REFRESH,
> SUB_OPT_BINARY,
> SUB_OPT_STREAMING
> } SubOpts_enum;
What you are writing here and your comment two paragraphs above are
inconsistent as you are using an enum here. Please see a3dc926 and
the surrounding discussion for reasons why we've been using bitmaps
for option parsing lately.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-05-24 02:04:37 | Re: Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump |
| Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-05-24 01:31:44 | RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key |