On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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.
So, where do we go from here? Any other opinions? I'm not sure how much it's really worth fighting over a six line patch, but there's something in me that rails against the idea of telling someone who took the trouble to write a patch "no" when the only argument against it is that we might change our mind at some point in the future. Of course, I will accept the consensus of the community whatever it is, but the only people who have expressed a clear opinion on this version of the patch are Tom, Bruce, and myself, and 2-1 is not a consensus. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
