Hello,
>> I'm unsure about switching enum to #define, could be an enum still with
>> explicit values set, something like:
>
> An enum doesn't have a benefit for a bitmask imo - you can't "legally"
> use it as a type for functions accepting the bitmask.
I do not understand. I suggested to use enum to enumerate the bitmask
constants, ISTM that it does not preclude to use it as a bitmask as you
do, it is just a replacement of the #define? The type constraint on the
enum does not disallow bitmasking values, I checked with both gcc & clang.
>> I'm fuzzy about the _OPEN_DELETED part because it is an oxymoron. Is it
>> RECREATE really?
>
> No. The relevant explanation is at the top of the file:
[...]
> * -- Optionally, any number of inactive segments of size 0 blocks.
> * Inactive segments are those that once contained data but are currently
> * not needed because of an mdtruncate() operation. The reason for leaving
> * them present at size zero, rather than unlinking them, is that other
> * backends and/or the checkpointer might be holding open file references to
> * such segments. If the relation expands again after mdtruncate(), such
> * that a deactivated segment becomes active again, it is important that
> * such file references still be valid --- else data might get written
> * out to an unlinked old copy of a segment file that will eventually
> * disappear.
Ok.
Then should it be _OPEN_INACTIVE[TED] or _OPEN_TRUNCATED rather than
_OPEN_DELETED, which is contradictory?
--
Fabien.
