Re: [HACKERS] user mapping messages

2017-03-01 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:06 PM, 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".

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

2017-02-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

2017-02-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan

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