> On 1 May 2025, at 00:04, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 5:24 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>> Attached is a current v4 with a few small tweaks.
>
> Sorry to turn up late here, but I strongly disagree with the notion
> that this is a bug in the DSM or DSA code. It seems to me that it is
> the caller's responsibility to provide a valid resource owner, not the
> job of the called code to ignore the resource owner when it's
> unusable. I suspect that there are many other parts of the system that
> rely on the ResourceOwner machinery which likewise assume that the
> ResourceOwner that they are passed is valid.
Thanks for review, I’m currently travelling over the extended weekend but will rework the approach shortly when back at
theoffice.
./daniel