On 20.10.22 01:24, Corey Huinker wrote:
> I'd be inclined to remove the highly used ones as well. That way the
> codebase would have more examples of object_ownercheck() for readers to
> see. Seeing the existence of pg_FOO_ownercheck implies that a
> pg_BAR_ownercheck might exist, and if BAR is missing they might be
> inclined to re-add it.
We do have several ownercheck and aclcheck functions that can't be
refactored into this framework right now, so we do have to keep some
special-purpose functions around anyway. I'm afraid converting all the
callers would blow up this patch quite a bit, but it could be done as a
follow-up patch.
> If we do keep them, would it make sense to go the extra step and turn
> the remaining six "regular" into static inline functions or even #define-s?
That could make sense.