On 10/27/21, 10:22 AM, "Joshua Brindle" <joshua.brin...@crunchydata.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:12 PM Mark Dilger > <mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> I don't understand the purpose of this. You are defining >> can_set_role(member,role) as a simple wrapper around >> is_member_of_role(member,role). Couldn't the comment: >> >> + * >> + * Do not use this for privilege checking, instead use has_privs_of_role() >> >> be added to the header for is_member_of_role() without needing the new >> wrapper function? > > It could be, but the intent is to dissuade it from being used, so > getting rid of it and making an explicit version that has a sole use > seemed useful. > > It's possible that it's being used inappropriately out-of-tree so this > would also prevent that.
I think a comment about the intended usage is sufficient. However, renaming the function or replacing it with a wrapper might break extensions and encourage the authors to reevaluate. That could be a good thing. Nathan
