On 2025-Mar-11, Amul Sul wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote: > > > I fleshed this out more fully and I think 0001 is good enough to commit. > > The approach looks good to me, but instead of adding a CAS_flags struct, could > we use macros like SEEN_DEFERRABILITY(bits), SEEN_ENFORCEABILITY(bits), > etc.? We can simply pass cas_bits to these macros, and to avoid the error > from processCASbits(), we can pass NULL for constrType.
Ah yeah, I thought of this too at first, but didn't actually code it because I thought it'd be messier. Trying to do it naively doesn't work, because it's not enough to test whether each bit is true or false -- what you need to know is whether an option was specified for each bit, in either direction. So we'd need a separate bitmask, we can't pass the existing 'bits' mask. And at that point, it's not any better to have a bitmask, and a stack-allocated struct of booleans is just easier to write. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Los dioses no protegen a los insensatos. Éstos reciben protección de otros insensatos mejor dotados" (Luis Wu, Mundo Anillo)
