| 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
| 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 |