From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: user mapping messages |
Date: | 2017-03-02 07:05:19 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRcVXRne_DsrvhB6XP-hsMYuXLcH3SdcCbNsBRYUZgwEiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Andrew Dunstan
<andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> While reviewing the IF NOT EXISTS patch for CREATE USER MAPPING I
> noticed that in several places we treat the user name as the name of the
> user mapping. Strictly ISTM that user mappings are really anonymous
> objects, so instead of something like user "mapping \"%s\" does not
> exist for the server" we should possibly have "user mapping for user
> \"%s\" does not exist for the server".
Your proposed usage is better than the existing one.
> I was about to make that change
> in the patch when I saw that it was consistent with current usage. Do we
> want to stick with the current usage where we treat the user name as the
> mapping name, or change it?
>
We should change existing usage and then commit the patch with new
usage. The new message being added should be consistent with other
places.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-03-02 07:17:37 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-03-02 07:04:14 | Re: patch: function xmltable |