On 2025-Mar-11, Amul Sul wrote: > I was thinking of something like the attached, which includes your > test cases from 0001. Perhaps the macro name could be improved.
FWIW I like this general idea. I don't like the proposed names much though, especially the abuse of ALL_CAPS; and because they operate on the given bits themselves rather than the output of processCASbits(), I would have these checks before doing anything else. (Also, for nicer code layout I would perhaps make the macros static inline functions.) I'm going to stay away from this for a bit, as I think this is of somewhat secondary importance. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Every machine is a smoke machine if you operate it wrong enough." https://twitter.com/libseybieda/status/1541673325781196801
