Re: Refactor "mutually exclusive options" error reporting code in parse_subscription_options

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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: 2021-05-25 05:34:15
Message-ID: YKyMV0WLiqcQF+OH@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:59:37AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I'm not able to grasp what are the incompatibilities we can have if
> the enums are used as bit masks. It will be great if anyone throws
> some light on this?

0176753 is one example.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-05-25 05:46:27 Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size?
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-05-25 05:29:37 Re: Refactor "mutually exclusive options" error reporting code in parse_subscription_options