[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Review of GetUserId() Usage
From:       Stephen Frost <sfrost () snowman ! net>
Date:       2015-02-28 4:41:41
Message-ID: 20150228044141.GB29780 () tamriel ! snowman ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


Jeevan,

* Jeevan Chalke (jeevan.chalke@gmail.com) wrote:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world:  tested, passed
> Implements feature:       tested, passed
> Spec compliant:           tested, passed
> Documentation:            tested, passed
> 
> I have reviewed the patch.
> Patch is excellent in shape and does what is expected and discussed.
> Also changes are straight forward too.

Great, thanks!

> So looks good to go in.
> 
> However I have one question:
> 
> What is the motive for splitting the function return value from
> SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOPERMISSION into
> SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOSUPERUSER and SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOPERMISSION?
> 
> Is that required for some other upcoming patches OR just for simplicity?

That was done to provide a more useful error-message to the user.  It's
not strictly required, I'll grant, but I don't see a reason to avoid
doing it either.

> Currently, we have combined error for both which is simply split into two.
> No issue as such, just curious as it does not go well with the subject.

It seemed reasonable to me to improve the clarity of the error messages.

> You can mark this for ready for committer.

Done.

I've also claimed it as a committer and, barring objections, will go
ahead and push it soonish.

	Thanks!

		Stephen

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]