On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 12:25:51AM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
> BTW, I did the same thing in another patch I'm proposing[1], so I'll fix
> that as well.
Yes, it would be better to be consistent here.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2021-06-08 11:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Julien Rouhaud writes:
However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
permission failure if you're not a superuser.
Yeah, it's just weird if such a check is not the fi
On 2021/06/08 11:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Julien Rouhaud writes:
However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
permission failure if you're not a superuser.
Yeah, it's just weird if such a check is not the
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
>> However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
>> permission failure if you're not a superuser.
>
> Yeah, it's just weird if such a check is not the first thing
> in the function. Even if
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 03:53:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> It seems to me that we had better check for a superuser at the
>> beginning of the function, like in the attached.
> However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
> permission fail
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 12:23 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While reading the code of pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(), I have
> been surprised to see that the code would attempt to look at a PROC
> entry based on the given input PID *before* checking if the function
> has been called b
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 03:53:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> While reading the code of pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(), I have
> been surprised to see that the code would attempt to look at a PROC
> entry based on the given input PID *before* checking if the function
> has been called by
