From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege |
Date: | 2010-09-06 21:31:12 |
Message-ID: | 23741.1283808672@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Another thing that could raise eyebrows is that I chose to remove the
> "missing_ok" argument from get_role_oid_or_public, so it's not a perfect
> mirror of it. None of the current callers need it, but perhaps people
> would like these functions to be consistent.
Well, it can't be really consistent anyway: if you did have a missing_ok
argument then you'd need an unusual return convention so you could
distinguish "missing" from "public". As long as this is a static
function I don't see a strong need for it to mimic the API of the
general get_whatever_oid functions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-09-06 21:40:38 | Re: OT: OFF TOPIC: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-09-06 21:16:57 | Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege |