On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:31:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd rather do something like the attached, which makes it more of an
> explicit goal that we won't fail on bad input. (As written, we'd only
> fail on bad classId, which is a case that really shouldn't happen.)
Okay, that part looks fine.
> Tests are the same as yours, but I revised the commentary and got
> rid of the elog-for-bad-relkind.
No objections on that part either.
> I also made some cosmetic changes in commands/alter.c, so as to (1)
> make it clear by inspection that those calls are only used to feed
> aclcheck_error, and (2) avoid uselessly computing a value that we
> won't need in normal non-error cases.
Makes also sense. Thanks for looking at it!
--
Michael
