Re: Comment for UserMappingPasswordRequired in contrib/postgres_fdw

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Comment for UserMappingPasswordRequired in contrib/postgres_fdw
Date: 2026-02-22 11:10:57
Message-ID: CAPmGK14UhVq70eJyEVOVSvrkb6ayQnhsk_a63bfrOc7Sg2-HBQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 5:30 AM Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
> On 2/18/26 9:23 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > I think the former part of the comment should be: Return *false* if
> > the password_required is defined and false for this user mapping,
> > otherwise *true*.
> I feel the wording of the comment is pretty awkward both before and
> after your correctness fix. I am not a native speaker but shouldn't it
> be something like the below which explains better what is actually going on.
>
> /*
> * Checks the value of password_required, defaults to true
> * if not defined. The mapping has been pre-validated.
> */

I like your wording. I am not a native speaker either, though. This
would be nitpicking, but I think it is better to clearly mention what
the function returns. How about modifying it a bit, like this?

/*
* Check and return the value of password_required, if defined; otherwise,
* return true, which is the default value of it. The mapping has been
* pre-validated.
*/

Anyway, thanks for the comment!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-02-22 11:15:03 Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)
Previous Message Henson Choi 2026-02-22 11:09:52 Re: Row pattern recognition