Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-11T20:29:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 9:38 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.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

Commits

  1. Refactor function parse_subscription_options.

  2. Refactor function parse_output_parameters.

  3. Refactor option handling of CLUSTER, REINDEX and VACUUM

  4. Add assertion to quiet Coverity