Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Date: 2010-09-06 21:31:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Another thing that could raise eyebrows is that I chose to remove the
> "missing_ok" argument from get_role_oid_or_public, so it's not a perfect
> mirror of it.  None of the current callers need it, but perhaps people
> would like these functions to be consistent.

Well, it can't be really consistent anyway: if you did have a missing_ok
argument then you'd need an unusual return convention so you could
distinguish "missing" from "public".  As long as this is a static
function I don't see a strong need for it to mimic the API of the
general get_whatever_oid functions.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2010-09-06 21:40:38
Subject: Re: OT: OFF TOPIC: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-09-06 21:16:57
Subject: Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group