Re: T_PrivGrantee is left in NodeTag

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: T_PrivGrantee is left in NodeTag
Date: 2015-09-16 07:08:05
Message-ID: 20150916.160805.66837154.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, thank you for pointing it out.

At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:02:30 +0900, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20150916140230(dot)a232426c(dot)nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
> I found that codes about T_PrivGrantee was removed
> by the following commit;
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=31eae6028eca4365e7165f5f33fee1ed0486aee0
>
> but T_PrivGrantee is left in NodeTag in src/include/nodes/nodes.h.
>
> Is it intended?

I simply forgot to remove it.

The comment for NodeTag says that,

====
* Note that the numbers of the node tags are not contiguous. We left holes
* here so that we can add more tags without changing the existing enum's.
* (Since node tag numbers never exist outside backend memory, there's no
* real harm in renumbering, it just costs a full rebuild ...)
====

However, I think it'd be better to be removed.

Thoughts? The attached patch simply removes it.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Remove-unused-node-type-tag-T_PrivGrantee.patch text/x-patch 773 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2015-09-16 07:16:27 Reliance on undefined behaviour in << operator
Previous Message ghanshyamb 2015-09-16 06:53:54 PostgreSQL streaming replication doubt