Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refer to a TOKEN_USER payload as a "token user, " not as a "user
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refer to a TOKEN_USER payload as a "token user, " not as a "user |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160403030439.GL10850@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refer to a TOKEN_USER payload as a "token user, " not as a "user (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refer to a TOKEN_USER payload as a "token user, " not as a "user
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 11:07:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > > * Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote: > > >> I see some advantages of writing "TokenUser", as you propose. However, our > > >> error style guide says "Avoid mentioning called function names, either; > > >> instead say what the code was trying to do." Mentioning an enumerator name is > > >> morally similar to mentioning a function name. > > > > > That's a fair point, but it doesn't mean we should use a different > > > spelling for the enumerator name to avoid that piece of the policy. I > > > certianly don't see "token user" as saying "what the code was trying to > > > do" in this case. > > > > FWIW, "token user" conveys entirely inappropriate, politically incorrect > > connotations to me ;-). I don't have any great suggestions on what to use > > instead, but I share Stephen's unhappiness with the wording as-committed. > > The wording in GetTokenUser() and AddUserToTokenDacl() seems fine; let's > standardize on that. Also, every GetTokenUser() failure has been yielding two > messages, the second contributing no further detail. I'll reduce that to the > usual one message per failure. This approach works for me. Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: