(2010/06/14 21:35), Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@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 <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>