Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage

From: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage
Date: 2015-02-26 09:53:19
Message-ID: 20150226095319.2538.6025.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation: tested, passed

I have reviewed the patch.
Patch is excellent in shape and does what is expected and discussed.
Also changes are straight forward too.

So looks good to go in.

However I have one question:

What is the motive for splitting the function return value from
SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOPERMISSION into
SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOSUPERUSER and SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOPERMISSION?

Is that required for some other upcoming patches OR just for simplicity?

Currently, we have combined error for both which is simply split into two.
No issue as such, just curious as it does not go well with the subject.

You can mark this for ready for committer.

The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2015-02-26 10:11:30 Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2015-02-26 09:50:24 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS