Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> 1. It makes more of the crappy error message change that Andres and I
>> already objected to on the other thread. Whether you disagree with
>> those objections or not, don't make an end-run around them by putting
>> more of the same stuff into patches on other threads.
>
> The error message clearly needed to be updated either way or I wouldn't
> have touched it. I changed it to match what I feel is the prevelant and
> certainly more commonly seen messaging from PG when it comes to
> permissions errors, and drew attention to it by commenting on the fact
> that I changed it. Doing otherwise would have drawn similar criticism
> (is it did upthread, by Peter or Alvaro, I believe..) that I wasn't
> updating it to match the messaging which we should be using.

OK, I guess that's a fair point.

>> I think it's unfathomable that you would consider anything in this
>> patch a back-patchable bug fix. It's clearly a straight-up behavior
>> change... or more properly three different changes, only one of which
>> I agree with.
>
> I didn't think it was back-patchable and stated as much. I anticipated
> that argument and provided my thoughts on it. I *do* think it's wrong
> to be using GetUserId() in this case and it's only very slightly
> mollified by being documented that way.

It's not wrong. It's just different than what you happen to prefer.
It's fine to want to change things, but "not the way I would have done
it" is not the same as "arguably a bug".

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company