Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I have looked this over a little bit and I guess I don't see why the > >> lack of a grand plan for how to organize all of our permissions checks > >> ought to keep us from removing this one on the grounds of redundancy. > >> We have to attack this problem in small pieces if we're going to make > >> any progress, and the pieces aren't going to get any smaller than > >> this. > > > > I would turn that argument around: given the lack of a grand plan, > > why should we remove this particular check at all? Nobody has argued > > that there would be a significant, or even measurable, performance gain. > > When and if we do have a plan, we might find ourselves putting this > > check back. > > You're arguing against a straw man - there's clearly no argument here > from performance. We generally do not choose to litter the code with > redundant or irrelevant checks because it makes the code difficult to > maintain and understand. Sometimes it also hurts performance, but > that's not a necessary criterion for removal. Nor are we generally in > the habit of keeping redundant code around because a hypothetical > future refactoring might by chance end up putting exactly the same > code back.
I agree. Why are arbitrary restrictions being placed on code improvements? If code has no purpose, why not remove it, or at least mark it as NOT_USED. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
