All, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Well, if you *only* move RowSecurityDesc and not RowSecurityPolicy, > > okay, but that seems a bit useless/inconsistent if I'm reading it > > right that RowSecurityDesc contains a List of RowSecurityPolicy structs. > > Yes, good point. > > > What seems possibly saner is to just remove the header inclusion in rel.h > > and declare the new Relation field similarly to the way we handle > > rd_fdwroutine and some other fields there: > > > > /* use "struct" here to avoid needing to include rowsecurity.h: */ > > struct RowSecurityDesc *rsdesc; /* Row-security policy, or NULL */ > > Makes sense to me. > > > And while you are at it, how about renaming "rsdesc" to "rd_rsdesc"? > > The fact that whoever put in trigdesc didn't get the memo about the > > naming convention for Relation fields doesn't excuse you from following > > it. > > Ok. I tend to be bad and mistakenly consider existing code 'gospel'. > Will fix. > > > PS: The comments for struct RowSecurityPolicy could stand to be improved. > > Understood, will do so.
And, done.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
