Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:16:43 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bogus error message for ALTER TABLE ALTER CONSTRAINT
Message-ID: <202503141116.4dt3o344svkd@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAJ_b97hd-jMTS7AjgU6TDBCzDx_KyuKxG+K-DtYmOieg+giyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202503141116.4dt3o344svkd%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

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