В письме от среда, 26 марта 2025 г. 18:41:13 MSK пользователь Robert Haas написал:
> What I'm upset about is that it feels to me like Nikolay is trying to > win the argument by yelling. I do not think it is fair. When votes are against you (and I did not ask anybody else's help for it) it turned out, that I am yelling, and thus voting is not valid. I do not demand enum, you can create new reloption data type that can be true false and unset. I even would agree with isset_offset, it you manage to make code consistent. I doubt anybody manages do it, but may be I am wrong. You did not even try, you just insist on keeping code inconsistent, because nobody care. Nikolay cares, but he is yelling while caring, so let's set him aside. The only thing I am asking for: please keep code consistent. Better keep reloption core the way it was, but if it is not possible, then keep it consistent then. Enum is the cheapest way to achieve the goal Nathan want, and keep code consistent. Cheapest, not the best. When the dust settles down I will try to invent boolean-based data type, that would not be ugly as this enum, and even may be suitable for vacuum_index_cleanup option. I see there is a demand for this. But this will need carefull thinking and development. And starting from ugly Enum with boolean values would be much easy then from boolean with isset_offset. -- Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj Fuzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
