| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: aclchk.c refactor |
| Date: | 2005-11-21 16:57:40 |
| Message-ID: | 2507.1132592260@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches pgsql-www |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Now I noticed that there are multiple functions pg_class_aclmask,
> pg_database_aclmask, pg_language_aclmask, etc. Is there any objection
> to making the exported routine expose the object type as an AclKind
> parameter instead of having one function for each object type?
How about "in addition to" instead of "instead"? I see no reason to
impose extra notation and a level of indirection on the places that know
perfectly well which object type they are dealing with.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-21 17:03:59 | Re: drop database if exists |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-11-21 16:34:41 | Re: aclchk.c refactor |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2005-11-21 17:53:54 | Mirror database down? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-11-21 16:34:41 | Re: aclchk.c refactor |