On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:57:47PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The parentheses that commit e3a87b4991cc removed the requirement for are
> those that the committed code still has, starting at the errcode() line.
> The ones in errmsg() were redundant and have never been necessary.
Indeed,
On 2021-Sep-14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:51:18AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:14:36PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:51:18AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:14:36PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
nitpick: It looks like there's an extra
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:14:36PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> nitpick: It looks like there's an extra set of parentheses around
> >> errmsg().
> >
> > Indeed. Even the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:45 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> nitpick: It looks like there's an extra set of parentheses around
> errmsg().
>
> Indeed. Even the requirement for extra parenthesis around auxiliary function
> calls was removed
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:14:36PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> nitpick: It looks like there's an extra set of parentheses around
>> errmsg().
>
> Indeed. Even the requirement for extra parenthesis around auxiliary function
> calls was
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> nitpick: It looks like there's an extra set of parentheses around
> errmsg().
Indeed. Even the requirement for extra parenthesis around auxiliary function
calls was removed in v12 (e3a87b4991cc2d00b7a3082abb54c5f12baedfd1).
--
Euler
On 9/11/21, 1:31 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
wrote:
> We have two static check_permissions functions (one in slotfuncs.c
> another in logicalfuncs.c) with the same name and same code for
> checking the privileges for using replication slots. Why can't we have
> a single function
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021, at 5:28 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> We have two static check_permissions functions (one in slotfuncs.c
> another in logicalfuncs.c) with the same name and same code for
> checking the privileges for using replication slots. Why can't we have
> a single function
Hi,
We have two static check_permissions functions (one in slotfuncs.c
another in logicalfuncs.c) with the same name and same code for
checking the privileges for using replication slots. Why can't we have
a single function CheckReplicationSlotPermissions in slot.c? This way,
we can get rid of
10 matches
Mail list logo
