From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Subject: Re: Allow root ownership of client certificate key
In-reply-to: <86a05828-6396-314a-58c8-45e50eb2cfb8@pgmasters.net>
References: <f4b7bc55-97ac-9e69-7398-335e212f7743@pgmasters.net> <20211108190405.GL20998@tamriel.snowman.net> <716ece6d-7500-8665-05f0-488e75c5525d@pgmasters.net> <377058.1642538462@sss.pgh.pa.us> <86a05828-6396-314a-58c8-45e50eb2cfb8@pgmasters.net>
Comments: In-reply-to David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
	message dated "Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:44:29 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <413537.1642542708.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:51:48 -0500
Message-ID: <413538.1642542708@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/413538.1642542708%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> On 1/18/22 15:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The only other nitpick I have is that I'd make the cross-references be
>> to the two file names, ie like "Note that similar checks are performed
>> in fe-secure-openssl.c ..."  References to the specific functions seem
>> likely to bit-rot in the face of future code rearrangements.
>> I suppose filename references could become obsolete too, but it
>> seems less likely.

> It's true that functions are more likely to be renamed, but when I 
> rename a function I then search for all the places where it is used so I 
> can update them. If the function name appears in a comment that gets 
> updated as well.

Harsh experience says that a lot of Postgres contributors have zero
interest in updating comments two lines away from what they're editing,
let alone in some distant branch of the source tree.  But I'm not dead
set on it either way.

			regards, tom lane