-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/27/2015 05:34 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/27/2015 01:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm, these are not ACL objects, so conceptually it seems cleaner
>> to use a different symbol for this. I think the catalog state
>> and the error messages would be a bit confusing otherwise.
>
> Ok -- done
>
>> Isn't this leaking the previously allocated array? Not sure
>> it's all that critical, but still. (I don't think you really
>> need to call palloc at all here.)
>
> Agreed -- I think the attached is a bit cleaner.
>
> Any other comments or concerns?
Pushed to HEAD and 9.5
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=gYmH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----