| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage |
| Date: | 2014-10-16 19:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20141016190359.GH28859@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> I'm not sure what your point is. Whether keeping changes separate is
> easy or hard, and whether things overlap with multiple other things or
> just one, we need to make the effort to do it.
What I was getting at is that the role attributes patch would need to
depend on these changes.. If the two are completely independent then
one would fail to apply cleanly when/if the other is committed, that's
all.
I'll break them into three pieces- superuser() cleanup, GetUserId() ->
has_privs_of_role(), and the additional-role-attributes patch will just
depend on the others.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-16 19:04:00 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-16 19:00:10 | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |