Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 03:03:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:18:37AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Won't 'Lateral' clause be helpful here as the patch contains it in one
> >> of its tests?
> >
> > Ah true, I forgot that.
>
> If we are redesigning the interface, here are two extra thoughts which
> may be worth considering:
> 1) If the function returns multiple columns, could it make sense to
> separate infomask and infomask2?  This would then give 3 columns:
> - The raw flags for infomask.
> - The three combined flags for infomask.
> - The flags for infomask2.
> 2) Could it make sense to have a separate function for infomask2?
>

I don't see much use of separating information for infomask and infomask2.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com