Jeevan, * Jeevan Chalke (jeevan.cha...@gmail.com) wrote: > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: tested, passed > Documentation: tested, passed > > I have reviewed the patch. > Patch is excellent in shape and does what is expected and discussed. > Also changes are straight forward too.
Great, thanks!
> So looks good to go in.
>
> However I have one question:
>
> What is the motive for splitting the function return value from
> SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOPERMISSION into
> SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOSUPERUSER and SIGNAL_BACKEND_NOPERMISSION?
>
> Is that required for some other upcoming patches OR just for simplicity?
That was done to provide a more useful error-message to the user. It's
not strictly required, I'll grant, but I don't see a reason to avoid
doing it either.
> Currently, we have combined error for both which is simply split into two.
> No issue as such, just curious as it does not go well with the subject.
It seemed reasonable to me to improve the clarity of the error messages.
> You can mark this for ready for committer.
Done.
I've also claimed it as a committer and, barring objections, will go
ahead and push it soonish.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
