Horton

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

Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-05-25T06:00:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> 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.

Hm. I get it, it is the coding style incompatibilities. Thanks.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: 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