> On 1 May 2025, at 00:04, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 5:24 PM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: >> Attached is a current v4 with a few small tweaks. > > Sorry to turn up late here, but I strongly disagree with the notion > that this is a bug in the DSM or DSA code. It seems to me that it is > the caller's responsibility to provide a valid resource owner, not the > job of the called code to ignore the resource owner when it's > unusable. I suspect that there are many other parts of the system that > rely on the ResourceOwner machinery which likewise assume that the > ResourceOwner that they are passed is valid.
Thanks for review, I’m currently travelling over the extended weekend but will rework the approach shortly when back at the office. ./daniel
