-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/27/2015 01:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, these are not ACL objects, so conceptually it seems cleaner to
> use a different symbol for this. I think the catalog state and the
> error messages would be a bit confusing otherwise.
Ok -- done
> Isn't this leaking the previously allocated array? Not sure it's
> all that critical, but still. (I don't think you really need to
> call palloc at all here.)
Agreed -- I think the attached is a bit cleaner.
Any other comments or concerns?
- --
Joe Conway
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=pS6L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
