Re: Refactor to make use of a common function for GetSubscriptionRelations and GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactor to make use of a common function for GetSubscriptionRelations and GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations.
Date: 2022-07-21 04:33:19
Message-ID: YtjXD5ChRdI3OBnH@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:54:05AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yeah, it is not very clear to me either. I think this won't be
> difficult to change one or another way depending on future needs. At
> this stage, it appeared to me that bitmask is a better way to
> represent this information but if you and other feels using enum is a
> better idea then I am fine with that as well.

Please don't get me wrong :)

I favor a bitmask over an enum here, as you do, with a clean
layer for those flags.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-07-21 05:04:18 Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2022-07-21 04:24:05 Re: Refactor to make use of a common function for GetSubscriptionRelations and GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations.