Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2022-Jan-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It makes zero sense to have the bits in AFTER_TRIGGER_TUP_BITS not
>> be adjacent.  So what should happen here is to renumber the symbols
>> in between to move their bits over one place.

> Is it typical to enumerate bits starting from the right of each byte,
> when doing it from the high bits of the word?  DONE and IN_PROGRESS have
> been defined as 0x1 and 0x2 of that byte for a very long time and I
> found that very strange.  I am inclined to count from the left, so I'd
> pick 8 first, defining the set like this:

Doesn't matter to me either way, as long as the values look like they
were all defined by the same person ;-)

> (The fact that FDW_REUSE bits is actually an empty mask comes from
> 7cbe57c34dec, specifically [1])

That seemed a bit odd to me too, but this is not the patch to be
changing it in, I suppose.

            regards, tom lane