Re: user mapping messages

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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