Re: [HACKERS] user mapping messages
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Andrew Dunstanwrote: > > While reviewing the IF NOT EXISTS patch for CREATE USER MAPPING I > noticed that in several places we treat the user name as the name of the > user mapping. Strictly ISTM that user mappings are really anonymous > objects, so instead of something like user "mapping \"%s\" does not > exist for the server" we should possibly have "user mapping for user > \"%s\" does not exist for the server". Your proposed usage is better than the existing one. > I was about to make that change > in the patch when I saw that it was consistent with current usage. Do we > want to stick with the current usage where we treat the user name as the > mapping name, or change it? > We should change existing usage and then commit the patch with new usage. The new message being added should be consistent with other places. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] user mapping messages
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > While reviewing the IF NOT EXISTS patch for CREATE USER MAPPING I > noticed that in several places we treat the user name as the name of the > user mapping. Strictly ISTM that user mappings are really anonymous > objects, so instead of something like user "mapping \"%s\" does not > exist for the server" we should possibly have "user mapping for user > \"%s\" does not exist for the server". I was about to make that change > in the patch when I saw that it was consistent with current usage. Do we > want to stick with the current usage where we treat the user name as the > mapping name, or change it? Hmm, I vaguely recall that due to some previous discussion I changed some of uses of the former wording to your proposed one, which I agree is an improvement. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] user mapping messages
While reviewing the IF NOT EXISTS patch for CREATE USER MAPPING I noticed that in several places we treat the user name as the name of the user mapping. Strictly ISTM that user mappings are really anonymous objects, so instead of something like user "mapping \"%s\" does not exist for the server" we should possibly have "user mapping for user \"%s\" does not exist for the server". I was about to make that change in the patch when I saw that it was consistent with current usage. Do we want to stick with the current usage where we treat the user name as the mapping name, or change it? (Yes, I know, it's pretty trivial). cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstanhttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers