Re: refactor ownercheck and aclcheck functions

On 21.10.22 21:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.

After considering this again, I decided to brute-force this and get rid 
of all the trivial wrapper functions and also several of the special 
cases.  That way, there is less confusion at the call sites about why 
this or that style is used in a particular case.  Also, it now makes 
sure you can't accidentally use the generic functions when a particular 
one should be used.