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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-06-13 00:46:23 | Re: Better formatting of functions in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-12 23:35:12 | Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL |