From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>,
        Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Asim R P <apraveen@pivotal.io>,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io>,
        Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take
In-reply-to: <20190411164947.nkii4gaeilt4bui7@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20190401231810.arpvmhw66bwsyobj@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAJrrPGfSEeqdZve2X8zkRo2Bm=M-bQf8WiJEMBshVvtrZjO0Gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190402005352.64hk76gddvs36uwl@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAJrrPGcB0=UteRJwGMzESdRecc-DUAQBSXfwExmVU1TKwMb5=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190402215743.cfiwzlk2szwq4jp3@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20190404055138.GA24864@telsasoft.com>
 <20190405165101.mosiflz6slokm2oo@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <9a7fb9cc-2419-5db7-8840-ddc10c93f122@iki.fi>
 <20190408173723.wnfni5t3g7ia7jit@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <9ed6bdab-0ce9-8c1a-8b84-838d4316ef35@iki.fi>
 <20190411164947.nkii4gaeilt4bui7@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:49:47 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <21770.1555004034.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:33:54 -0400
Message-ID: <21771.1555004034@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-04-11 14:52:40 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> +	 * HEIKKI: A flags bitmask argument would be more readable than 6 boo=
leans

> I honestly don't have strong feelings about it. Not sure that I buy that
> bitmasks would be much more readable

Sure they would be --- how's FLAG_FOR_FOO | FLAG_FOR_BAR not
better than unlabeled "true" and "false"?

> - but perhaps we could just use the
> struct trickery we started to use in

I find that rather ugly really.  If we're doing something other than a
dozen-or-so booleans, maybe its the only viable option.  But for cases
where a flags argument will serve, that's our longstanding practice and
I don't see a reason to deviate.

			regards, tom lane