Horton

Re: [PATCH] ternary reloption type

Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>

View thread
From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>, Timur Magomedov <t.magomedov@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2025-09-14T08:49:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow Boolean reloptions to have ternary values

Attachments

В письме от пятница, 12 сентября 2025 г. 16:46:19 MSK пользователь Timur 
Magomedov написал:
> Hello Nikolay!
> 
> Found a typo in reloptions.h, treaed -> treated.
Oups. Fixed that in the attached version.

> Can ternary enum be added in a separate header file, say,
> src/include/ternary.h instead of adding it to c.h? I'm just not sure if
> c.h is it the right place for relation-options-specific code.
> Of course, I can be wrong.

I am not sure either. But my guess is that spamming into c.h is lesser crime 
then adding another useless header file.

Moreover, ternary value is not relation-options-specific, it is actually 
relation specific, if you think about it thoroughly. Relation code uses it, and 
there is no way to avoid that. 

Are there any other notions about the code?

I tried to make thongs more neat and more consistent here. Did I succeed?

-- 
Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj
Fuzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional
Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su