Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> I agree. Why are arbitrary restrictions being placed on code
>> improvements? If code has no purpose, why not remove it, or at least
>> mark it as NOT_USED.
> So, where do we go from here? Any other opinions? I'm not sure how
> much it's really worth fighting over a six line patch, but there's
> something in me that rails against the idea of telling someone who
> took the trouble to write a patch "no" when the only argument against
> it is that we might change our mind at some point in the future. Of
> course, I will accept the consensus of the community whatever it is,
> but the only people who have expressed a clear opinion on this version
> of the patch are Tom, Bruce, and myself, and 2-1 is not a consensus.
I still say that this patch is putting the cart before the horse.
What we need before we do any significant amount of rearrangement
of security checks is to have a plan for where they should go.
Making a change here and a change there without a plan isn't an
improvement, it just risks creating bugs.
If I thought this patch represented incremental movement in the
direction of a better security-check factorization, I'd be fine with it,
but that's not clear either. The argument for it is that these checks
are redundant with some other ones, but why should we remove these and
not the other ones instead? And there would still be still some checks
left in this file, so it doesn't seem to me that we'd have actually made
any progress towards clarity of where the checks should be.
Plan first, then code, please.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-01-13 18:36:46|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-13 18:24:22|
|Subject: Hot Standby and query cancel|