>
> We left Flight SQL as experimental, so we should take the chance to fix
> things, IMO.
+1
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:11 PM David Li wrote:
> Hey James,
>
> For bitmasks: maybe we should treat some properties as "levels" instead of
> bitmasks? And then they could follow the usual Protobuf en
Hey James,
For bitmasks: maybe we should treat some properties as "levels" instead of
bitmasks? And then they could follow the usual Protobuf enum style (UNKNOWN =
0, other values follow). For SQL_DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_ISOLATION_LEVEL, maybe it
should be that an unset value means unknown, 0 means
I was examining the properties in GetSqlInfo and have a few questions as
far as the proper way to approach some issues.
Some bitmask properties have options that are intended to be mutually
exclusive.
For example the SQL_GROUP_BY property is a bitmask where possible values
are:
- SQL_GROUP_BY_UNRE
