(2010/06/14 21:35), Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> This is essentially the same patch that I wrote and posted several >> weeks ago, with changes to the comments and renaming of the >> identifiers. Are you trying to represent it as your own work? > > Ehh, I doubt it. He had included your patch in another patch that he > was working, which I then reviewed and asked him to update/change, and > I think part of that was me asking that he keep the hook patch split > out. He then split it out of his patch rather than just going back to > yours. > >> With all due respect, I intend to imply my own version. Please make >> your other proposed patches apply on top of that. > > This strikes me as a case of "gee, won't git help here?". Perhaps we > can use this as an opportunity to show how git can help. Then again, > it's not exactly a huge patch. :) > The patch provides the same functionality with what you wrote and posted several weeks ago, but different from identifiers and comments. During the discussion, I was suggested that 'ExecutorCheckPerms_hook' is not an appropriate naming on the refactored DML permission check routine, because it is not still a part of the executor. So, I changed your original proposition.
When ExecCheckRTPerms() was refactored to a common DML permission checker function, is the hook also renamed to more appropriately? If so, I don't have any opposition to go back to the original one. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
