From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: T_PrivGrantee is left in NodeTag |
Date: | 2015-09-16 07:08:05 |
Message-ID: | 20150916.160805.66837154.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, thank you for pointing it out.
At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:02:30 +0900, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20150916140230(dot)a232426c(dot)nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
> I found that codes about T_PrivGrantee was removed
> by the following commit;
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=31eae6028eca4365e7165f5f33fee1ed0486aee0
>
> but T_PrivGrantee is left in NodeTag in src/include/nodes/nodes.h.
>
> Is it intended?
I simply forgot to remove it.
The comment for NodeTag says that,
====
* Note that the numbers of the node tags are not contiguous. We left holes
* here so that we can add more tags without changing the existing enum's.
* (Since node tag numbers never exist outside backend memory, there's no
* real harm in renumbering, it just costs a full rebuild ...)
====
However, I think it'd be better to be removed.
Thoughts? The attached patch simply removes it.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Remove-unused-node-type-tag-T_PrivGrantee.patch | text/x-patch | 773 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-09-16 07:16:27 | Reliance on undefined behaviour in << operator |
Previous Message | ghanshyamb | 2015-09-16 06:53:54 | PostgreSQL streaming replication doubt |