| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2021-06-11 20:29:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaEUfU4mXAo47Q41t7EztXPWoPExWMK6y7nGjG2kuGvoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 9:38 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> This should be okay, right? Well, almost. The problem here is if you
> want to have a variable where you set more than one option, you have to
> use bit-and of the enum values ... and the resulting value is no longer
> part of the enum. A compiler would be understandably upset if you try
> to pass that value in a variable of the enum datatype.
Yes. I dislike this style for precisely this reason.
I may, however, be in the minority.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-06-11 20:29:54 | Re: Character expansion with ICU collations |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-06-11 20:25:59 | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |