(2010/01/12 10:27), Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I have looked this over a little bit and I guess I don't see why the >>>> lack of a grand plan for how to organize all of our permissions checks >>>> ought to keep us from removing this one on the grounds of redundancy. >>>> We have to attack this problem in small pieces if we're going to make >>>> any progress, and the pieces aren't going to get any smaller than >>>> this. >>> >>> I would turn that argument around: given the lack of a grand plan, >>> why should we remove this particular check at all? Nobody has argued >>> that there would be a significant, or even measurable, performance gain. >>> When and if we do have a plan, we might find ourselves putting this >>> check back. >> >> You're arguing against a straw man - there's clearly no argument here >> from performance. We generally do not choose to litter the code with >> redundant or irrelevant checks because it makes the code difficult to >> maintain and understand. Sometimes it also hurts performance, but >> that's not a necessary criterion for removal. Nor are we generally in >> the habit of keeping redundant code around because a hypothetical >> future refactoring might by chance end up putting exactly the same >> code back. > > I agree. Why are arbitrary restrictions being placed on code > improvements? If code has no purpose, why not remove it, or at least > mark it as NOT_USED. >
The attached patch adds a source code comment which informs developers that its own permission check had gone at the v8.5 release. I also think we don't need to note it on the release-note. If we would describe all the specification changes in external functions, is it really valuable as a summary? It seems to me too details. Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>
pgsql-fix-enable_disable_rule.3.patch
Description: application/octect-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
