On 2020-Dec-12, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-12-11 21:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > By the way-- What did you think of the idea of explictly marking the > > types used for bitmasks using types bits32 and friends, instead of plain > > int, which is harder to spot? > > If we want to make it clearer, why not turn the thing into a struct, as in > the attached patch, and avoid the bit fiddling altogether.
I don't like this idea too much, because adding an option causes an ABI break. I don't think we commonly add options in backbranches, but it has happened. The bitmask is much easier to work with in that regard.
