Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL

From: "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL
Date: 2008-06-12 23:44:50
Message-ID: 34d269d40806121644seb280eaxf62020ccbaff01c9@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Yep, I thought about doing the reverse.  Namely Just passing the
>> DropStmt to RemoveRelation(s).  But then all the permission check
>> functions are in utility.c.  Splitting those out seemed to be about
>> the same as splitting out all the ObjectAddress stuff...
>
> Well, that might actually be a good approach: try to get ProcessUtility
> back down to being just a dispatch switch.  It's pretty much of a wart
> that we're doing any permissions checking in utility.c at all.  Possibly
> those functions should be moved to aclchk.c and then used from
> RemoveRelation(s) and friends, which would stay where they are but
> change API.

Ok Ill work up a patch.  Whats that saying about sticking with your
first instinct?

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2008-06-13 00:46:23
Subject: Re: Better formatting of functions in pg_dump
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-12 23:35:12
Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group