On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 12/14/17 22:59, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> I noted that no_priv_msg and not_owner_msg array been removed > >> and code fitted the code into aclcheck_error(). Actually that > >> makes the code more complex then what it used to be. I would > >> prefer the array rather then code been fitted into the function. > > > > There is an argument for having a big array versus the switch/case > > approach. But most existing code around object addresses uses the > > switch/case approach, so it's better to align it that way, I think. > > It's weird to have to maintain two different styles. > > Only motivation is, earlier approach looks more cleaner. Also patch is getting bigger - so if we continue with old approach it will make review easy. Just in case switch/case approach is a go to, then it can be done as part of separate clean up patch. Thanks, Rushabh Lathia
