Re: refactor ownercheck and aclcheck functions

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.