Re: Use %u to print user mapping's umid and userid

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use %u to print user mapping's umid and userid
Date: 2016-05-12 18:53:32
Message-ID: 5320.1463079212@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> My suggestion is that we switch from using a List to marshal the data
> to using an ExtensibleNode. An advantage of that is that we'd have
> some in-core test coverage for the ExtensibleNode stuff. In theory it
> ought to be simpler and less messy, too, but I guess we'll find out.

Seems like a good idea, or at least one worth trying.

> Regardless of what approach we take, I disagree that this needs to be
> fixed in 9.6.

Agreed. This is only a cosmetic issue, and it's only going to be visible
to a very small group of people, so we can leave it alone until 9.7.

(FWIW, now that we've put in the list_make5 macros, I'd vote against
taking them out, independently of what happens in postgres_fdw.
Somebody else will need them someday, or indeed might already be
using them in some non-core extension.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-05-12 19:02:34 Re: Does Type Have = Operator?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-05-12 18:43:24 Re: alter table alter column ... (larger type) ... when there are dependent views