Re: [PATCH] Cleanup: unify checks for catalog modification

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup: unify checks for catalog modification
Date: 2014-10-15 02:00:09
Message-ID: 20141015020009.GH7043@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> writes:
> > I happened to notice that there are no less than 14 places in the code
> > that check whether a relation is a system catalog and throwing the
> > error "permission denied: "foo" is a system catalog"
>
> > The attached patch factors all of those into a single
> > ForbidSystemTableMods() function. Is this considered an improvement?
>
> I'd argue not. The code bulk savings is minimal, and this change
> would degrade the usefulness of the file/line number reporting that's
> built into ereport().

Along these lines, I've sometimes thought that it could be useful to
pass down file/line info from certain callers down to certain generic
check subroutines such as the one being proposed here. (I can't recall
any specific examples offhand.) Of course, doing it manually would be
very tedious and error prone, but perhaps we could have something like a
macro system that both sets up arguments in the called function, and
sets up the values in the callee.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-10-15 03:34:06 Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-10-14 23:10:35 Re: [PATCH] Cleanup: unify checks for catalog modification