Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Alex Hunsaker
Subject Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL
Date
Msg-id 34d269d40806121644seb280eaxf62020ccbaff01c9@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>> Yep, I thought about doing the reverse.  Namely Just passing the
>> DropStmt to RemoveRelation(s).  But then all the permission check
>> functions are in utility.c.  Splitting those out seemed to be about
>> the same as splitting out all the ObjectAddress stuff...
>
> Well, that might actually be a good approach: try to get ProcessUtility
> back down to being just a dispatch switch.  It's pretty much of a wart
> that we're doing any permissions checking in utility.c at all.  Possibly
> those functions should be moved to aclchk.c and then used from
> RemoveRelation(s) and friends, which would stay where they are but
> change API.

Ok Ill work up a patch.  Whats that saying about sticking with your
first instinct?

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL
Next
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane"
Date:
Subject: Re: Better formatting of functions in pg_dump