From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>,
 Timur Magomedov <t.magomedov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ternary reloption type
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 11:49:34 +0300
Message-ID: <4047390.3Lj2Plt8kZ@thinkpad-pgpro>
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <a48feb0829f4eb3e7b39b6de114e610935859580.camel@postgrespro.ru>
References: 
 <3474141.usfYGdeWWP@thinkpad-pgpro> <11330814.CDJkKcVGEf@thinkpad-pgpro>
 <a48feb0829f4eb3e7b39b6de114e610935859580.camel@postgrespro.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4961315.687JKscXgg";
 micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4047390.3Lj2Plt8kZ%40thinkpad-pgpro>
Precedence: bulk

--nextPart4961315.687JKscXgg
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nextPart4155600.3ZeAukHxDK";
 protected-headers="v1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ternary reloption type
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 11:49:34 +0300
Message-ID: <4047390.3Lj2Plt8kZ@thinkpad-pgpro>
Organization: Postgres Professional
MIME-Version: 1.0

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart4155600.3ZeAukHxDK
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

=D0=92 =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C=D0=BC=D0=B5 =D0=BE=D1=82 =D0=BF=D1=8F=D1=82=
=D0=BD=D0=B8=D1=86=D0=B0, 12 =D1=81=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=82=D1=8F=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=
=8F 2025 =D0=B3. 16:46:19 MSK =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=
=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Timur=20
Magomedov =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:
> Hello Nikolay!
>=20
> Found a typo in reloptions.h, treaed -> treated.
Oups. Fixed that in the attached version.

> Can ternary enum be added in a separate header file, say,
> src/include/ternary.h instead of adding it to c.h? I'm just not sure if
> c.h is it the right place for relation-options-specific code.
> Of course, I can be wrong.

I am not sure either. But my guess is that spamming into c.h is lesser crim=
e=20
then adding another useless header file.

Moreover, ternary value is not relation-options-specific, it is actually=20
relation specific, if you think about it thoroughly. Relation code uses it,=
 and=20
there is no way to avoid that.=20

Are there any other notions about the code?

I tried to make thongs more neat and more consistent here. Did I succeed?

=2D-=20
Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj
=46uzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional
Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su

--nextPart4155600.3ZeAukHxDK
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="v2a-0001-Add-ternary-reloption-type.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset="unicode-2-0-utf-8";
 name="v2a-0001-Add-ternary-reloption-type.patch"