From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PublicationActions - use bit flags.
In-reply-to: <3b7f2bdd-77ed-00d7-437c-dd9c37e6a2fa@enterprisedb.com>
References: 
 <CAHut+Pt2hjRJxfuF9_GUcBVg=nhk3G+WNsNkPtP2d+4CF4e4Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b7f2bdd-77ed-00d7-437c-dd9c37e6a2fa@enterprisedb.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:58:06 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2448555.1640019400.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 11:56:40 -0500
Message-ID: <2448556.1640019400@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2448556.1640019400%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 20.12.21 01:18, Peter Smith wrote:
>> I felt it is more natural to implement boolean flag combinations using
>> a bitmask instead of a struct of bools. IMO using the bitmask also
>> simplifies assignment and checking of said flags.

> I don't see why this is better.  It just makes the code longer and adds 
> more punctuation and reduces type safety.

It makes the code shorter in places where you need to process all the
flags at once, but I agree it's not really an improvement elsewhere.
Not sure if it's worth changing.

One thing I noted is that the duplicate PublicationActions typedefs
will certainly draw warnings, if not hard errors, from some compilers.
You could get around that by removing the typedefs altogether and just
using "int", which'd be more consistent with our usual practices anyway.
But it does play into Peter's objection about type safety.

			regards, tom lane