From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType |
Date: | 2017-12-15 19:10:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoazavRw_S913cNMdNeLV3SBgfU-em5fttSfQJZnd0JPuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/14/17 22:59, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>> I noted that no_priv_msg and not_owner_msg array been removed
>> and code fitted the code into aclcheck_error(). Actually that
>> makes the code more complex then what it used to be. I would
>> prefer the array rather then code been fitted into the function.
>
> There is an argument for having a big array versus the switch/case
> approach. But most existing code around object addresses uses the
> switch/case approach, so it's better to align it that way, I think.
> It's weird to have to maintain two different styles.
Eh, really? What about the two big arrays at the top of objectaddress.c?
(This is just a drive-by comment; I haven't looked at the details of
this patch.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-12-15 19:15:47 | Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-12-15 19:10:11 | Re: Top-N sorts verses parallelism |