Re: [HACKERS] object description for FDW user mappings
On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: appendStringInfo(buffer, _(user mapping for %s in server %s), usename, srv-servername); +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, in doesn't seem like the right word here. on server would read better to me; or perhaps at server. One more option may be for server (reading the doc for CREATE USER MAPPING) Thanks, Amit -- 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] object description for FDW user mappings
On 06-03-2015 AM 09:18, Amit Langote wrote: On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote: +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, in doesn't seem like the right word here. on server would read better to me; or perhaps at server. One more option may be for server (reading the doc for CREATE USER MAPPING) Oh, I see it's been done that way already. Thanks, Amit -- 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] object description for FDW user mappings
On 06-03-2015 AM 09:30, Tom Lane wrote: Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes: One more option may be for server (reading the doc for CREATE USER MAPPING) Hm, but then you'd have user mapping for foo for server bar, which doesn't read so nicely either. Yeah, I had totally missed the for foo part; I was thinking of it as of foo. By the way, in this case, is foo the name/id of a local user or does it really refer to some foo on the remote server? Thanks, Amit -- 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] object description for FDW user mappings
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes: By the way, in this case, is foo the name/id of a local user or does it really refer to some foo on the remote server? It's the name of a local user. I see your point that somebody might misread this as suggesting that it's a remote username, but not sure that there's anything great we can do here to disambiguate that. regards, tom lane -- 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] object description for FDW user mappings
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes: On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote: +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, in doesn't seem like the right word here. on server would read better to me; or perhaps at server. One more option may be for server (reading the doc for CREATE USER MAPPING) Hm, but then you'd have user mapping for foo for server bar, which doesn't read so nicely either. regards, tom lane -- 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] object description for FDW user mappings
Tom Lane-2 wrote Amit Langote lt; Langote_Amit_f8@.co gt; writes: By the way, in this case, is foo the name/id of a local user or does it really refer to some foo on the remote server? It's the name of a local user. I see your point that somebody might misread this as suggesting that it's a remote username, but not sure that there's anything great we can do here to disambiguate that. Yeah, clarifying that point seems to add verbosity for little gain. On the message aspect is it against style to use composite notation in a case like this? user mapping (%s, %s) It is basically a single, if compound, noun so adding in/at/to doesn't feel right... David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/object-description-for-FDW-user-mappings-tp5840655p5840729.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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] object description for FDW user mappings
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: When commit cae565e503 introduced FDW user mappings, it used this in getObjectDescription for them: appendStringInfo(buffer, _(user mapping for %s), usename); This was later mostly copied (by yours truly) as object identity by commit f8348ea32e wherein I used this: appendStringInfo(buffer, %s, usename); As it turns out, this is wrong, because the pg_user_mapping catalog has a two-column primary key which is user OID and server OID. Therefore it seems to me that the correct object description and identity must include both username and server name. I propose we change the above to this: appendStringInfo(buffer, _(user mapping for %s in server %s), usename, srv-servername); +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, in doesn't seem like the right word here. on server would read better to me; or perhaps at server. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
