From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PublicationActions - use bit flags. |
Date: | 2021-12-29 16:30:15 |
Message-ID: | 20211229163014.GO24477@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:18:41AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> For some reason the current HEAD PublicationActions is a struct of
> boolean representing combinations of the 4 different "publication
> actions".
>
> I felt it is more natural to implement boolean flag combinations using
> a bitmask instead of a struct of bools. IMO using the bitmask also
> simplifies assignment and checking of said flags.
Peter E made a suggestion to use a similar struct with bools last year for
REINDEX.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7ec67c56-2377-cd05-51a0-691104404abe@enterprisedb.com
Alvaro pointed out that the integer flags are better for ABI compatibility - it
would allow adding a new flag in backbranches, if that were needed for a
bugfix.
But that's not very compelling, since the bools have existed in v10...
Also, the booleans directly correspond with the catalog.
+ if (pubform->pubinsert) pub->pubactions |= PUBACTION_INSERT;
This is usually written like:
pub->pubactions |= (pubform->pubinsert ? PUBACTION_INSERT : 0)
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2021-12-29 16:44:31 | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-29 15:40:59 | Re: Report checkpoint progress in server logs |