Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeevan Chalke
Subject Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage
Date
Msg-id 20150226095319.2538.6025.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

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?

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.

You can mark this for ready for committer.

The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions