Re: superuser() shortcuts

On 2014-11-26 08:33:10 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> I'm not really particular about which way we go with the specific
> > >> wording (suggestions welcome..) but the inconsistency should be dealt
> > >> with.
> > >
> > > Meh.
> >
> > +1 for "meh". I don't mind making things consistent if it can be done
> > while maintaining or improving the absolute quality of those error
> > messages -- but if the changes involve a loss of detail, or moving
> > information that used to be in the main error message into the detail,
> > then I don't think it's worth it.
>
> Doesn't that argument then apply to the other messages which I pointed
> out in my follow-up to Andres, where the detailed info is in the hint
> and the main error message is essentially 'permission denied'?

A permission error on a relation is easier to understand than one
for some abstract 'replication' permission.

> Also, if we're going to make these error-messages related to role
> attributes be 'you need role attribute X', should we consider doing
> the same for the regular 'permission denied' error messages?

> I can understand the arguments about loss of detail or having the detail
> in the hint instead of the error message. I don't understand why we'd
> want the messaging to be inconsistent.

I'm not generally against making them more consistent. I'm vehemently
against making them consistent by making them worse. And the suggested
changes are worse.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services