| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, marti(at)juffo(dot)org, rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER |
| Date: | 2014-11-13 20:35:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20141113203513.GI1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> - Storage for new information
>
> The new struct NameId stores an identifier which telling what it
> logically is using the new enum NameIdTypes.
I think NameId is a bad name for this. My point is that NameId, as it
stands, might be a name for anything, not just a role; and the object it
identifies is not an Id either. Maybe RoleSpec? Do we need a public_ok
argument to get_nameid_oid() (get a better name for this function too)
so that callers don't have to check for InvalidOid argument? I think
the arrangement you propose is not very convenient; it'd be best to
avoid duplicating the check for InvalidOid in all callers of the new
function, particularly where there was no check before.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-13 20:43:39 | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-13 20:01:36 | Re: Segmentation fault in pg_dumpall from master down to 9.1 and other bug introduced by RLS |