Re: refactor ownercheck and aclcheck functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: refactor ownercheck and aclcheck functions
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=dYg3urxeycJFpMRgTCPYk7=04R0CrJoC-qGOLBptWB+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to refactor ownercheck and aclcheck functions  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: refactor ownercheck and aclcheck functions
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 3:39 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
These patches take the dozens of mostly-duplicate pg_foo_ownercheck()
and pg_foo_aclcheck() functions and replace (most of) them by common
functions that are driven by the ObjectProperty table.  All the required
information is already in that table.

This is similar to the consolidation of the drop-by-OID functions that
we did a while ago (b1d32d3e3230f00b5baba08f75b4f665c7d6dac6).

Nice reduction in footprint!

I'd be inclined to remove the highly used ones as well. That way the codebase would have more examples of object_ownercheck() for readers to see. Seeing the existence of pg_FOO_ownercheck implies that a pg_BAR_ownercheck might exist, and if BAR is missing they might be inclined to re-add it.

If we do keep them, would it make sense to go the extra step and turn the remaining six "regular" into static inline functions or even #define-s?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ts_locale.c: why no t_isalnum() test?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical WAL sender unresponsive during decoding commit