| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |
| Date: | 2019-04-11 17:33:54 |
| Message-ID: | 21771.1555004034@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-04-11 14:52:40 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> + * HEIKKI: A flags bitmask argument would be more readable than 6 booleans
> I honestly don't have strong feelings about it. Not sure that I buy that
> bitmasks would be much more readable
Sure they would be --- how's FLAG_FOR_FOO | FLAG_FOR_BAR not
better than unlabeled "true" and "false"?
> - but perhaps we could just use the
> struct trickery we started to use in
I find that rather ugly really. If we're doing something other than a
dozen-or-so booleans, maybe its the only viable option. But for cases
where a flags argument will serve, that's our longstanding practice and
I don't see a reason to deviate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robbie Harwood | 2019-04-11 17:40:49 | Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2019-04-11 17:29:29 | Re: block-level incremental backup |