Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage
Date: 2015-02-28 04:41:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Jeevan Chalke (jeevan(dot)chalke(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> 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.

Great, thanks!

> So looks good to go in.
> However I have one question:
> What is the motive for splitting the function return value from
> Is that required for some other upcoming patches OR just for simplicity?

That was done to provide a more useful error-message to the user. It's
not strictly required, I'll grant, but I don't see a reason to avoid
doing it either.

> 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.

It seemed reasonable to me to improve the clarity of the error messages.

> You can mark this for ready for committer.


I've also claimed it as a committer and, barring objections, will go
ahead and push it soonish.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-02-28 05:25:17 Re: Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2015-02-28 04:25:31 Re: Improving RLS qual pushdown