Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole?

Hello, sorry for the absence. I changed the regnamespace's
behavior as the same as the other reg* types. And I attached a
patch as separate one that fixes regroleout to do the same as the
other reg* types, because I have

0001-Add-regrole_v6.patch : fix regnamespace to behave as the
same as the other reg* types.

0001-Make-regnamespace-behave-as-the-same-as-other-reg-ty.patch:
Diff from v5 to v6, only for convinience.

0001-Fix-regroleout-s-behavior-following-other-out-functi.patch:
Fixes regroleout so as to behave as the same as other reg*
types, but might be a bit too large.

At Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:46:01 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote in <551C3CE9(dot)4080503(at)dunslane(dot)net>
> > But in any case I cannot see a reason to treat regnamespace
> > differently
> > from the existing types on this point.
> >
> >
>
> Good points.
>
> I agree re namespace. And I also agree that shared dependency support
> is not worth the trouble, especially not just to support regrole. I'm
> not sure that's a reason to reject regrole entirely, though. However,
> I also think there is a significantly less compelling case for it than
> for regnamespace, based on the number of times I have wanted each.
>
> Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Yeah, that's my thinko. regnamespace in the attached patch
behaves as the same to other reg* types. On the way fixing it, I
found a bug that regnamespaceout returns NULL for removed shema
name. I fixed it, too.

Addition to that, regroleout raises exception for invalid role
oids. This is unwanted behavior but GetUserNameFromId is needed
to have one extra parameter 'noerr' to fix this. This fix is
attached as another patch.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center