| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: user mapping messages |
| Date: | 2017-02-23 14:52:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20170223145244.rtwtcfv7t2hymiox@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> While reviewing the IF NOT EXISTS patch for CREATE USER MAPPING I
> noticed that in several places we treat the user name as the name of the
> user mapping. Strictly ISTM that user mappings are really anonymous
> objects, so instead of something like user "mapping \"%s\" does not
> exist for the server" we should possibly have "user mapping for user
> \"%s\" does not exist for the server". I was about to make that change
> in the patch when I saw that it was consistent with current usage. Do we
> want to stick with the current usage where we treat the user name as the
> mapping name, or change it?
Hmm, I vaguely recall that due to some previous discussion I changed
some of uses of the former wording to your proposed one, which I agree
is an improvement.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-02-23 15:04:27 | Re: FYI: git worktrees as replacement for "rsync the CVSROOT" |
| Previous Message | Dr. Michael Meskes | 2017-02-23 14:46:02 | Re: Keep ECPG comment for log_min_duration_statement |