From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:06:28 -0400
Message-ID: <20190701180628.GA17184@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201901032112.xpqqwmumqml2@alvherre.pgsql>
It strikes me that the way to avoid sentence construction is to have
each enum reloption declare a string that it uses to list the values it
accepts. So for example we would have
+#define GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_ENUM_DEF { \
+ { "on", GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_ON }, \
+ { "off", GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_OFF }, \
+ { "auto", GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_AUTO }, \
+ { (const char *) NULL, 0 } \
+}
+
+ GistBufferingValidMsg = gettext_noop("Valid values are \"on\", \"off\", and \"auto\".");
I think that's the most contentious point on this patch at this point
(though I may be misremembering).
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, dhyan@nataraj.su, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type
In-Reply-To: <20190701180628.GA17184@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox