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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
