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: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-05-24T07:26:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 7:04 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> What you are writing here and your comment two paragraphs above are
> inconsistent as you are using an enum here.  Please see a3dc926 and
> the surrounding discussion for reasons why we've been using bitmaps
> for option parsing lately.

Thanks! I'm okay to do something similar to what the commit a3dc926
did using bits32. But I wonder if we will ever cross the 32 options
limit (imposed by bits32) for CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION command.
Having said that, for now, we can have an error similar to
last_assigned_kind in add_reloption_kind() if the limit is crossed.

I would like to hear opinions before proceeding with the implementation.

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