Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>> Yep, I thought about doing the reverse.  Namely Just passing the
>> DropStmt to RemoveRelation(s).  But then all the permission check
>> functions are in utility.c.  Splitting those out seemed to be about
>> the same as splitting out all the ObjectAddress stuff...
>
> Well, that might actually be a good approach: try to get ProcessUtility
> back down to being just a dispatch switch.  It's pretty much of a wart
> that we're doing any permissions checking in utility.c at all.  Possibly
> those functions should be moved to aclchk.c and then used from
> RemoveRelation(s) and friends, which would stay where they are but
> change API.

Ok Ill work up a patch.  Whats that saying about sticking with your
first instinct?